Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, having been signified—

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.

To be considered on Monday 15 October at Seven o'clock.

PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Lords amendments agreed to.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 October.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

Mr. Speaker: As all the Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 October.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 October.

SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 October.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 October.

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 October.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session:
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time.
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented with the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Wednesday 17 October at Seven o'clock.

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the


Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

MIDLAND MEMO BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Midland Metro Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;


That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 18 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any assessment of spending needs of local authorities for the coming financial year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made to the House on 19 July.

Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State will probably recall that on 25 April he said that he would reconsider the standard spending assessment calculations for next year in the light of local authority representations. He will also probably recall that his Minister of State said on 12 July that he would not reconsider the standard spending assessment system. Which of the two right hon. and hon. Members is right?

Mr. Patten: We have always made it entirely clear that we are prepared to consider fresh evidence on the methodology that underlies the new grant distribution formula. That has been, and remains, our position. We shall consider fresh evidence and make our proposals in due course.

Mr. Ward: When my right hon. Friend comes to consider spending needs for the coming year, will he ensure that councils that have not really bothered to try to collect the community charge do not receive any special recompense? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate Poole borough council, which has collected 97 per cent. of the community charge—the highest in the country?

Mr. Patten: The collection figures of the more competent local authorities are pretty good. I congratulate the elected members and officers in my hon. Friend's local authority on the record that they have set. Overall, the figures for collection of the community charge are about the same as those for domestic rates in their last year.

Mr. Pike: Does not the Secretary of State now agree that there is overwhelming evidence that many of the SSAs are wrong; and will he give an assurance that action will be taken to help county councils such as Lancashire, so that it receives a fair allocation of Government resources with which to meet the needs for essential services of the community that elected that council?

Mr. Patten: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about SSAs, but I believe that several local authorities, including Lancashire county council, have not been providing value for money.

Environmentally Friendly Goods

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to encourage uniform standards in the labelling of environmentally friendly goods.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): A national


advisory group has been appointed to help develop a workable scheme for awarding environmental labels to products so as to inform consumer choice. We hope that that will be part of a European Communitywide scheme which will facilitate trade.

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful for that answer. Most people, given a choice, would want to purchase environmentally friendly goods. Will my hon. Friend ensure that goods are clearly labelled in future so that consumers can readily identify which of them are environmentally friendly?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, we are aware that there are several less than satisfactory labelling schemes. The Department of Trade and Industry is looking into whether they should be banned under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. One of the advantages of having our own authoritative scheme is that it will clear the market of the less than satisfactory alternatives.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister discuss with Ministers in the Department of Energy environmental labelling of power stations? Will he consider putting the same information in very big writing on power stations as he would like on other goods—that is, the environmental disadvantages and the cost of nuclear power—so that everyone can see what the real choices in energy consumption are and, in the light of today's Select Committee report, what a waste of money nuclear power is?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: All methods of generating electricity show a balance of environmental advantages and disadvantages. As the hon. Gentleman knows, nuclear power produces no gaseous emissions and is therefore benign from the point of view of global warming. It may also have disadvantages, but the information is freely available and nuclear power does not require a separate labelling system.

Mr. Squire: Given that few products are wholly benign, and as my hon. Friend is looking at a cradle-to-grave concept, is he looking into a series of gradations in labelling so that consumers can have an idea of comparative benefit, rather than a system of absolute benefits or absolute disadvantages?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is open to the advisory committee to come up with a number of alternatives such as my hon. Friend suggests, but I believe that simplicity is a virtue. We want to guide the consumer with a scheme that is readily understood, and that might work against making labels too complex.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Which soap powder is used in the Minister's household, and why is it environmentally friendly?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No doubt the advisory committee will be labelling soap powders, but which soap powders are used in the House of Commons is not my responsibility.

Chipboard Factories

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received on chipboard factory emissions; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I have received several representations, including some from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), whom I met to discuss the issue early this week. I also met delegations from Cowie and Chirk at the same meeting.

Mr. Amos: Pursuant to the meeting between my hon. Friend and the delegation from Hexham on Monday, may I express the thanks of the people of Hexham to my hon. Friend for so promptly establishing a system of air pollution control to deal with emissions from the Egger factory, without in any way affecting the commercial viability or economic success of the factory? While asking him to look sympathetically at the few outstanding items of detail, may I urge him to accept that this has brought about a real improvement—at long last—for my constituents in the Hexham area? Is not this yet another example of how the Government listen and take prompt and effective action, compared with the Opposition, who promise everything and do nothing?

Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I congratulate him on his leadership of the three delegations that I saw early this week. I am delighted to tell him that I shall respond in detail to the outstanding matters that were discussed at our earlier meeting and I am confident that my letter will please him.

Mr. Speller: May I ask my hon. Friend also to bear it in mind that there are other chipboard factories throughout the country? There is a large one in South Molton, which has always co-operated fully with the local authority. This year it received a clean bill of health and intends to keep it that way. It is easy to seek to be especially awkward about anything that appears to be outside the norm of the wonderful green countryside.

Mr. Trippier: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's latter point. The purpose of the delegation that came to see me was to try to establish the correct balance between the economic activity that is generated by these important companies and the environment in which they operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has said, the environment in which chipboard companies operate has not been acceptable in recent times. As a result of our discussions and the improvements that have been catalogued in the Environmental Protection Bill, we think that we have the balance right.

Home Ownership

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of adults owned their own homes in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1989.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): Some 54 per cent. of households in England were owner-occupiers in 1979, 59 per cent. in 1983 and 65 per cent. in 1987 and 1988. Survey results for 1989 are not yet


available, but between 1979 and 1988 the number of owner-occupier households has increased by nearly 3 million.

Dr. Twinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steady progress made by the Government over the past seven years in extending owner-occupation. Does he agree that the time is now right further to extend that, particularly by helping council flat tenants through bringing in the rents-to-morgage scheme as soon as possible?

Mr. Spicer: We are looking at several ways of increasing home ownership among lower-income groups. The rents-to-mortgage scheme is one of the options that we are considering, but we are also looking at other schemes such as increasing shared ownership and part-mortgage schemes.

Mr. Cryer: In pursuit of the right to buy, does the Minister intend to introduce rights for private tenants to buy their property or is the discrimination by the Tory party against private tenants and in favour of private landlords to continue? When will he consider those who cannot afford to buy, people who want decent homes at reasonable rents? The Minister must know that local authorities, which have traditionally provided such homes, are short of funds to build council housing, which remains the basic prerequisite for people who need housing.

Mr. Spicer: Unlike the Labour party, we do not believe in the sequestration of private property. I hope that people will look at the Labour party's pronouncements and writings on that subject, because it avowedly believes in the sequestration of private property. The hon. Gentleman asked about reasonable rents. I totally agree that we want a more thriving rented sector, especially in the private rented sector. One of the ways to reduce rents in the private sector is to supply more properties.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend accept that those encouraging figures are very much due to the successful Government policy over the years of selling council houses? Is he aware that the Labour-controlled Norwich city council has never been keen on that policy and is still actively discouraging the sale of council houses? Does he agree that such a policy does nothing to increase the housing stock in Norwich or anywhere else?

Mr. Spicer: Norwich has to comply with the law. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the right-to-buy policy has been a tremendous success. More than 1·2 million households have now exercised that right. The pressure from people to buy is increasing and we think that about 80,000 people will buy this year. My hon. Friend is right to press his council to comply with the law.

Mr. George Howarth: When will the Minister recognise that there is no virtue in either owning or renting a property, but that the real difficulty is that the housing finance system is more chaotic and useless than that of any other European country? When will he introduce proposals to increase people's choice of whether to rent or buy, and when will he reform the housing finance system? The real problem is that people do not have a choice.

Mr. Spicer: I agree that we want a more thriving rented sector. However, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not agree when I say that we want that to be largely in the private and housing association sectors. Therefore, it is of

great concern to us that the Labour party is preparing policies further to undermine and possibly to kill off the private rented sector, as that would kill the choice that the hon. Gentleman goes on about.

Land Register

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of unused land from the land register.

Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of derelict land from the land register.

Mr. Michael Spicer: We are considering various possibilities. Any firm proposals would be the subject of public consultation.

Mr. Ashby: Is not it a scandal that so much public land in our towns and cities is lying idle? Will my hon. Friend take urgent steps to ensure that that land is sold off to the private sector, which knows how to put it into good and productive use?

Mr. Spicer: I listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say on the matter. He is right that a great amount of vacant land is held in the public sector. There are at least 80,000 acres on the register, and there are questions as to whether that accurately reflects the total amount of vacant land. We are looking urgently and seriously at that matter.

Mr. Alison: Given that plenty of land is still on the register, will my hon. Friend undertake to call in proposals to develop a substantial small new town with new housing on Acaster Malbis airfield near York, in my constituency, given that that development is unrelated to any present settlements and is in conflict with the local structure and the local plan?

Mr. Spicer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on specific applications. When we have further information about the plans in his constituency, and in particular about the local planning authority's view, we shall be able to take a view about calling in.

Mr. Winnick: In so far as this building land is for housing, will the Minister bear it in mind that the majority of people who are in desperate housing need, and others who sympathise with them, believe that local authorities should once again be in a position to build? Is the Minister aware that a recent survey published by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux shows the failure, arising from the Housing Act 1988, of the private rented sector to provide accommodation for people with ordinary incomes? Does not that demonstrate that those who cannot afford a mortgage should be able to have decent accommodation without having to live with their families or their in-laws, or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

Mr. Spicer: The problems of the private rented sector have nothing to do with the 1988 Act. That Act has started the process of putting them right. The problems have more to do with the denigration of private landlords, which has gone on, largely led by the Labour party, over many years. That is very much in contrast with what happens in most other industrialised countries.

Mr. Pike: The Minister will recognise that much of the derelict and unused land is contaminated. Do the Government intend to respond to the report on contaminated land by the Select Committee on the Environment, which said that that is a major problem in many of the older and industrial towns?

Mr. Spicer: We are reviewing policy on contaminated land, but already £70 million of derelict land grant is available for contaminated as well as other vacant land.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that the House would like to know whether the Minister sleeps well at night knowing that there are 80,000 acres of derelict land on the register, another 80,000 acres of public vacant land that should be on the register, and three quarters of a million empty houses. Should not an embargo be placed on building houses on green-field sites until the derelict and vacant land in public ownership is used up and the empty houses all over the country are occupied?

Mr. Spicer: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend wants an answer about my sleeping habits, but I do understand that green-field development is questionable when large sectors of public land are vacant. Under present plans, we would be urbanising—if that is the right word—about 140,000 acres up to the end of the century, whereas, if my hon. Friend's figures are right—and I have no reason to dispute them—the area of public vacant land exceeds that figure. My hon. Friend is right to point that out.

Nature Conservancy Council

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has available on the cost to date of his proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council and for the establishment of new posts to cover work previously undertaken by Nature Conservancy Council headquarters in Peterborough.

Mr. Trippier: The Government have allocated £1·4 million in the current financial year to cover costs arising directly from the proposal to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council and the other conservation agencies. To date, just over £95,000 has been spent. Work on the staffing and organisational structures of the new bodies continues, and we hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: Is William Wilkinson's figure of £30 million correct or incorrect?

Mr. Trippier: It is incorrect. Some rather wild estimates have been published in the national newspapers, but they have no basis in fact and are, at best, pure speculation. There is genuine confusion between what could be earmarked as reorganisation costs and the real costs of the new organisations that will be set up as a result of the green Bill currently going through Parliament. There is no basis for those estimates and I believe that the figure will be much more modest.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that the exaggerations expressed in those figures are of a piece with the chairman's propensity to exaggerate? Does he further accept that the reorganisation of the structure on which the Government have embarked is widely welcomed in Scotland because it will lead to a more sensitive handling of environmental issues there?

Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his latter comments, which I believe are realistic and present to the House a true and fair picture of precisely what will happen. The proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill will deliver improved conservation. There is no change in the Government's policy. We are simply changing the machinery.

Mr. Gould: But is not it the case that the slur that we have just heard cast on the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council can be removed only when the figure produced by independent consultants is released for public information? Is not that figure in the area of £30 million? If the Minister does not accept that figure, why not, and what is his estimate? Why will not he guarantee that any extra administrative costs, whether £30 million or something like that, that are the result of the Government's unnecessary reorganisation, will be met by new money, not from the existing Nature Conservancy Council budget? If he will not do that, will not his refusal further undermine the Government's already and justifiably fading green pretensions as well as the vital nature conservancy effort?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman will have taken note of the fact that I carefully did not join in the remonstration by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in the earlier part of his question, nor should I wish to. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) would not wish to be associated with that. I met Sir William Wilkinson last week and we discussed the figure that has just been mentioned. There was a clear conflict between his understanding and the understanding of Mr. Timothy Hornsby, who also attended the meeting. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a much more realistic figure was agreed between Mr. Timothy Hornsby and my officials at the Department of the Environment. I have never sought to deny in any way, shape or form that reorganisation will cost more money. If we are to deliver the policy to which I referred earlier, it will cost more money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are clear about the matter. We are under the microscope. We know that we have to deliver improved conservation. That we have already shown in the 11 years that we have been in office. During that period we have increased expenditure on nature conservation by 160 per cent. in real terms. The previous Labour Government cut it. Labour Members just talk about conservation; they do absolutely nothing about it.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I give notice that I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Pollution Inspectorate and National Rivers Authority

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of employees of (a) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and (b) the National Rivers Authority.

Mr. Chris Patten: The total number of staff in post in HMIP is 215. The National Rivers Authority employs a total of some 6,700 staff, of which some 750 are engaged in pollution control responsibilities.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister accept that there are appalling double standards in that the NRA has 6,000 staff


to deal with water pollution while HMIP has only 200 staff to deal with air pollution and toxic waste management? Does that not result in poor monitoring and poor regulation? Is it not time that the Department considered the possibility of the NRA taking over the functions of HMIP, especially as the latter appears to be a shambles?

Mr. Patten: I am delighted with the hon. Gentleman's well-merited commendation of the NRA, whose performance is a result of the Government's admirable legislation on water privatisation which has had a beneficial effect on the water environment.
The hon. Gentleman may not have heard, but in my original answer I said that the correct figure for staff in the NRA doing jobs more or less comparable with those in HMIP was 750, not 6,700, although the jobs cannot be precisely compared. We are increasing the complement of HMIP, we have increased the salaries for pollution inspectors, and we are continuing to recruit.
The problem faced by both the public sector and the private sector in Britain and in other countries is a shortage of people with the requisite skills. We shall be saying a great deal about higher education and training in our White Paper later this year.

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the director of HMIP the strong exception taken by my constituents and by the people of Greater Manchester to the inspectorate's rubber stamping of a proposal for a chemical and clinical waste incinerator at Trafford Park? Does my hon. Friend agree that the centre of a conurbation of 3 million people is no fit place for chemical, clinical, and toxic waste incinerators and will he investigate the situation?

Mr. Patten: I will certainly do that. As I understand it, my hon. Friend has an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment tomorrow and I am sure that he will be satisfied with the Government's response.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that many difficulties are being encountered by both the NRA and HMIP in trying to work out their new relationship? At times, the two bodies have to monitor the same pipe or outlet to different standards. Does not that emphasise the need for an independent, integrated environmental protection executive, and does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he was wrong in Committee to reject our proposals for such an executive? Does he accept that there will not be proper progress on protecting and cleaning up the environment until such an executive is established?

Mr. Patten: No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady's last point. It is a matter to which we have paid close attention, but I am far from convinced that the right way to ensure better monitoring and regulation of pollution is to have a further reorganisation of the inspectorates charged with those responsibilities.
We are always open to bright ideas, even when they come from the Opposition, although that is all too rare an occurrence. We are looking forward to the announcement of some bright ideas about local government finance from Mr. Peter Mandelson later today. I am sure that it will take account of all that the Opposition have said about domestic rates.
I assure the hon. Lady that we shall deal with those institutional matters in our White Paper later this year. I

do not take the view that institutional arrangements can substitute for sensible policies—and we have been pursuing sensible policies.

Standard Spending Assessments

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to finalise the elements which will determine standard spending assessments for 1991–92.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals for standard spending assessments in the autumn.

Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of standard spending assessments for the current year, the London borough of Havering has suffered a complete standstill in Government funding and thus finds itself charging adults £60 more each than if the settlement had allowed for even the average increase in outer London? Can my hon. Friend give even a cautious early warning of good news for my constituents in regard to next year's settlement, so that they may hope for a better outcome?

Mr. Portillo: I know of the Havering situation because my hon. Friend has led a number of delegations to Ministers in that regard. Havering's settlement was less than the average above its old grant-related expenditure assessment, but that does not suggest to me that it was unfair. I remind my hon. Friend that total standard spending for next year, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, will be up 19 per cent. The likelihood is that SSAs will, on average, increase considerably. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) will have heard my right hon. Friend's remark that we are, of course, willing to consider new evidence in respect of SSAs.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What are the Minister's preliminary views on fixing the SSA for Wandsworth? Does he think that it is right for Wandsworth to be considering cutting its services to the elderly, the disabled and the blind in advance of fixing its poll tax for 199 I? Is cutting services to those most in need what this flagship of Conservative local government is all about? Is not that approach quite squalid?

Mr. Portillo: Wandsworth's standard spending assessment was set on exactly the same basis as that used for every other authority. The proof of that is that Wandsworth received considerably less under its standard spending assessment than did a number of other London boroughs, such as Lambeth. There is no question of unfairness. I shall consider any new evidence relating to Wandsworth, as I shall in respect of other boroughs, but the spending decisions taken by local authorities are for them. In Wandsworth's case, the council is setting such a low community charge that there is, I am pleased to say, no question of capping.

Mr. Paice: When a local authority has to raise money to pay for its spending, will my hon. Friend consider the implications if that money were raised by a rate system from which two thirds of those apparently liable are either exempt or receive a 100 per cent. rebate? Would not that represent a return to the rotten borough situation which


applied to so many Labour local authorities, which bought votes at the expense of the few ratepayers who had to meet the bills?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The twin evils of the rating system were that only about half the population paid for local authority spending, which was grossly unfair—particularly given how that sample was selected—and that with such a small proportion of the population paying, some local authorities felt that because there were so many freeloaders in the system they could spend very high amounts of money. It is inconceivable that any political party would want to return to the unfairness of a property-based system.

Mr. Corbett: When SSAs are determined, what account is taken of housing need, and in particular of the special needs of councils such as the city of Birmingham, which has put in a £52 million bid to deal with property designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984?

Mr. Portillo: That matter is dealt with under the housing revenue accounts, which are now ring fenced. Within the SSA falls the range of services provided by the local authority, but even under the new, simplified system they are established on a basis which is somewhat complicated. I shall be happy to take the hon. Gentleman through that procedure at any time, if he is interested.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any intention of limiting the liability for paying directly towards the cost of local government to heads of households only.

Mr. Portillo: The community charge is based on the principle that it is only fair that nearly every adult should be liable to contribute to the cost of local authority spending. I believe that that principle is increasingly widely accepted.

Mr. Mans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one way to ensure that everyone's liability is reduced is to encourage high-spending councils such as mine in Lancashire to cut their costs, and more specifically their overheads? Is my hon. Friend aware that my council has held back no less than 32 per cent. of the money granted from central Government for the administrative costs of education?

Mr. Portillo: I have found it very disappointing that a number of local authorities have used the introduction of the community charge to boost their spending considerably. I am afraid that a large number of county councils that are not facing election this year have taken advantage of the transition to the new system and the confusion that there may have been in some voters' minds to boost their spending substantially, knowing that the district councils were sending out the bills. If my hon. Friend's constituents have suffered in that way, I regret it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is not there something absolutely grotesque in a system of taxation under which the Prime Minister and her husband in Dulwich will pay exactly the same poll tax as a couple round the corner living in a damp private flat? Is the Minister aware that during the summer, as councils struggle to collect the money from millions of people around the country who simply cannot afford to

pay, there will be a great deal of social upheaval as bailiffs move in to try to seize people's property to pay a tax which those people know is unfair and which they cannot afford to pay?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of local authorities. He should know that the community charge provides only a minority proportion of the total spending of local authorities. Because of that, a lot of the taxes that people pay are then recycled in the form of Government grant back to local authorities. The House will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announce that the external finance to local authorities next year is to increase by 12·8 per cent. That means, for example. that a barrister earning £100,000 is likely to make a contribution of about £7,300 to the cost of local authority services. That is a very substantial amount indeed.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most grotesque thing would be for half the population to receive the services and have a vote in the election, but make no contribution to the cost of the services? Is not it even more grotesque that the Labour party, having promised to abolish the rates in 1987, is now prepared to stand on its head and support that unfair tax?

Mr. Portillo: I believe that I saw it reported that the Leader of the Opposition had described the rates as a leap into the frying pan. I do not pretend entirely to understand what he meant by that, but I think that it must mean that at one time the Labour party thought that the rates were a very bad idea. There is a very good reason for thinking that. The rates are an unfair system. There is no relation between property ownership and income, and with only half the population paying, that is a fundamentally unfair system.

Mr. Gould: Will the Minister define those whom he described a moment ago as "freeloaders"? Are they the people who traditionally have made their own contributions towards household liability for the rates by virtue of arrangements made within the household—exactly the people whom we regard as valuable citizens and voters with full civil rights?

Mr. Portillo: I think that I can give a couple of examples of freeloaders. My first example, under the old system of rates—I gather that this would also be true under the system to which the Labour party wishes to return—would be the large number of wage earners in one house who pay a single rate bill between them, in comparison with the widow next door who has to pay the same amount or possibly more. My second example of freeloaders is those Labour Members who at the moment are choosing not to pay the community charge.

Mr. Favell: No doubt my hon. Friend has studied carefully the Labour party's proposals to reintroduce the rates. If those proposals were adopted, what would happen to the family of five earners, to the widow and to the deserted wife who is struggling to go out to work instead of living off the state?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend flatters me in saying that I might have studied the proposals carefully. So far, I have not seen any detail worthy of study. I am afraid that my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point that returning to a property-based system such as the rates would recreate


all the problems of those people clustered in households who may have high incomes but participate in only one rates bill. I know of no way in which the Labour party could get out of that problem. That is the basic unfairness of the rating system and I am amazed that after 11 years the Labour party wants to return to it.

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the poll tax liability of people on low incomes whose poll tax bills have not been significantly reduced either by transitional relief or by rebates.

Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend announced on 19 July that extra help would go next year to 7·5 million people receiving transitional relief and that 4 million more people would be brought into the transitional relief scheme.

Mr. Beith: What does the Minister intend to do about those elderly people who have struggled to pay their own way and who are in sheltered housing schemes where they previously paid their rates to the housing association and therefore did not get transitional relief? They now find that they are paying much more than they paid in rates but their income from limited capital puts them over the rebate limit.

Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, transitional relief is available to those in sheltered accommodation on the same basis as to other former ratepayers. The only defensible basis for a transitional relief scheme is an actual rates bill. In a large housing scheme, just as in a large house, there will be the difficulty that the rates bill is too large and divided between too few people. However, the calculation for those people is carried out on the same basis and, of course, if they are in need those charge payers will qualify for community charge rebate.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the people to whom the question refers, namely those on low or moderate incomes, would pay considerably more if they had to pay a local income tax, which is the plan proposed by the Liberal party?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, indeed. On previous occasions we have carried out exemplifications of that scheme, and the SLD party did not like the results. Of course, people on low incomes were treated worse under the old rating system because now, for every pound of income that a person on a low income may have, a 15p deduction is made from their benefit, whereas under the old rating system a 20p per pound deduction was made.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister take this opportunity to withdraw and apologise for his description a few moments ago of pensioners, the disabled, those on low wages and others in receipt of rebates under the rating system? If he does not do so, his description of such people as freeloaders will go down as one of the worst slurs by any Minister on the most vulnerable people in our society.

Mr. Portillo: We are very fortunate that our words are recorded in Hansard. The official record will bear me out;I was asked by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to define whom I meant, and I spoke of those income earners who were clustered together paying only one rates bill. The second group of people was those

Labour Members of Parliament refusing to pay the community charge. I endorse both those definitions which arise from Labour party policy.

Second Homes

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to introduce controls on the ownership of second homes.

Mr. Nicholls: We have no plans to do so.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy of the Labour party to give councils the right to decide whether people should have second homes in their areas is the ultimate example of the Labour party's determination to give power to the bureaucrats over the freedom of the individual?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has it exactly. Although the Labour party does its best to disguise the true effect of most of its policies, on this occasion it has helpfully been made perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is on record as saying:
The way it would work is if you wanted to sell to someone who wanted to use the house as a second home, you couldn't".

Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many modest second homes owned by people on low incomes, limited pensions and even income support? Will he consider extending transitional relief or rebates to those people?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend certainly makes an interesting point. People who own second homes do not always fit the rich profile that one may have in mind. The Labour party's policy would bite against everyone, particularly the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who has a country home in the Cotswolds.

Joint and Several Liability

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to change the joint and several liability rule included in the community charge legislation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Portillo: It is important that every adult should receive a community charge bill of his or her own. Any couple on low income will have their need for benefit assessed as a couple, but where one partner is not earning, joint and several liability provides an important protection which I do not propose to remove.

Mr. Michie: Why has the Minister chosen during the review period not to take into account strong representations about the present suffering, particularly of non-working wives and non-working mothers? Surely there is a good argument for giving those people special consideration, but for some reason the Minister has ignored it. Is it because he is blinded by the policy or does he regard those people, too, as freeloaders?

Mr. Portillo: I reject what the hon. Gentleman says about suffering. The needs of people on low income are assessed to see whether they qualify for community charge benefit. A couple's needs are assessed together. Obviously, the system takes into account that a couple has higher needs than a single person and that if it is a pensioner couple, if one of the couple is disabled or if the couple has


children, the needs are higher again. The needs of a couple are fully assessed within the system. The provision of joint and several liability is there to ensure that where one of the partners is not earning, the debt can be recovered from the earning partner, who has liability for the couple as a whole.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend assure the community charge payers of Ealing that, with all of us, he will strenuously resist the reintroduction of rates, remembering that in 1987 the Labour-controlled Ealing council introduced a rates rise of 65 per cent? Some pensioners nearly starved as a result, but Labour Members do not care.

Mr. Portillo: It was remarkable that throughout our recent two-day debate on charge capping, not one Labour Member once talked about the hardship for community charge payers of the high community charge bills being put out by Labour-controlled authorities. My hon. Friend has that concern for his constituents. I only wish that it was shared on the other side of the House.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware, or may I remind him, that millions of women stay at home to look after a family consisting of children or elderly relatives and thus do not earn any money or have any income or their own? Those women did not pay rates under the previous system, as the Minister pointed out. Is there any valid reason why they should not receive transitional relief, as they qualify in every way for it? Can the Minister explain why they do not qualify? When will he do away with the unfair and iniquitous provision of joint and several liability?

Mr. Portillo: We believe in treating couples as couples. A couple may decide that one of the partners will not earn and that the partner who earns will bear the responsibilities of the entire family. That decision is made by couples. If the amount that the partner who is earning receives is so little that the couple qualifies for relief, they will be assessed as a couple and their needs taken into account. As I have explained, if a couple has children, is elderly or disabled, the assessment of their needs will be higher. That is appropriate. The provision of joint and several liability exists to protect the non-earning partner.

Mr. David Nicholson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the position so clearly in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to bring home to the public the fact that the onus for paying the community charge within a couple where one partner has no income must rest on the partner with income?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have joint and several liability to emphasise the fact that, although under the benefit system we treat couples as couples, we recognise that two people who each receive a personal community charge bill, when one is earning but the other is not, should have joint and several liability so that liability can he recovered from the earning partner if required.

Charge-capped Authorities

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has carried out any assessment of the costs to those local authorities which have been

charge-capped and have had to issue new community charge bills to each charge payer; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: As I made clear in my statement on 3 April 1990 about community charge in England, we estimate that the costs will be about £200,000 per charging authority. I took account of that when I decided the authorities' caps.

Mr. Flannery: Is not it a fact that the Secretary of State, in whatever statements he has made, has never confessed that the Government are in total chaos about the poll tax and wish to God that they had never thought of it? Is not that the reality? If vast numbers of people are facing the bailiffs, and so on, and the chaos that that will produce, why on earth should local authorities now be having to raise an immense extra amount of money with no help from the Government and wondering what in God's name they are going to do? Is not it time that the Government withdrew the poll tax?

Mr. Patten: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first, second and fourth questions is no. The answer to the third question is that local authorities should take some account of the consequences of excessive spending, not least for their community charge payers.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are incensed that the local authority is refusing to remit to them the whole of the charge cap?

Mr. Patten: I recognise what my hon. Friend has said. It is astonishing, first, that some Labour local authorities are wriggling and squirming to avoid passing on budget reductions to their community charge payers and, secondly, that they have used so much of the community charge payers' money to try to ensure that community charge payers have to pay more. That is what the Labour party means by fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Ron Brown: Surely it is understood that the community charge—[interruption]—that the poll tax is clearly unacceptable to people both north and south of the border. If they refuse to pay, is not it a clear indication of people voting with their feet and with their pockets? Does the Secretary of State agree that if hon. Members say that they are not paying, as I do, they are leading by example? That is certainly important in the coming period.

Mr. Patten: Those Labour Members of Parliament and councillors who say that they will not pay the community charge are loading extra costs on to their own constituents. That is the worst sort of freeloading, and it should be deprecated by every hon. Member. I am sure that it is deprecated by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).

Institution of Civil Engineers

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the report on pollution issued by the Institution of Civil Engineers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: The institution sent me a copy of its report, entitled "Pollution and its Containment", which it


published on 19 July. I welcome the report as a valuable contribution to continuing studies of environmental issues.

Mr. Thurnham: While fully considering the fuel needs of poorer households, will my hon. Friend consider the need for a tax on carbon fuels, as recommended by the Institution of Civil Engineers?

Mr. Trippier: Taxation is entirely for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the recommendations in the document to which my hon. Friend referred, particularly in terms of the stabilisation of carbon dioxide levels at present levels by the year 2005, we shall address that matter in the forthcoming White Paper.

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend read the report carefully before he passes comment, unlike the reporter of The Observer newspaper who last Sunday was able to write about the Environment Select Committee's report on beaches before having seen it, allegedly on the basis of a leaked document? Five days later the reporter asked the Clerk to the Committee for a free copy so that she could rewrite what she had written the previous Sunday completely inaccurately.

Mr. Trippier: I share the disgust of my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Environment, about the article that appeared in the Sunday newspapers. It was far from the truth. I welcome the Select Committee's report and the nice things that it said, particularly about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister concede, either now or later, that the Government's best intentions to do environmentally good things in the White Paper have been shot through by the Treasury refusing to accept any fiscal penalty or advantage? There are to be no green taxes. Does not that undermine the pollution policy that the Government intended to introduce?

Mr. Trippier: The speculation in which the hon. Gentleman indulges is about as wide of the mark as The Observer article on bathing beaches to which my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) referred. Were I to convey to the hon. Gentleman the import of the White Paper, there would be no point in having the document.

Sikorsky Helicopter Crash

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement following the crash of a British International helicopter in the North sea this morning on its way to the Brent Spar platform.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): A Sikorsky S-61 helicopter on charter to Shell UK from British International Helicopters crashed into the North sea in the Brent field at about 10.45 am today. The helicopter was on its way to the Brent Spar loading rig, 116 miles north-east of Lerwick, from an accommodation unit also in the Brent field. The helicopter came down alongside the rig itself. The cause is not yet known.
Thirteen persons are known to have been on board the helicopter. Seven have so far been rescued, of whom four are seriously injured. They are being taken to the Aberdeen royal infirmary, along with the other three less seriously injured survivors. The two crew and four other passengers are so far unaccounted for, but the search is continuing.
Two Shell search-and-rescue helicopters based in the Brent field were on the scene within minutes of the accident. They were joined by a coastguard helicopter based at Sumburgh and an RAF Nimrod.
The rescue operations are being co-ordinated by the Aberdeen coastguards, assisted by the rescue co-ordination centre at Edinburgh. The wreckage of the aircraft has been located on the sea bed, in 400 ft of water. Specialist diving craft are on the scene.
Shell and Grampian police have set up contact telephone lines for relatives at their Aberdeen emergency control rooms.
The Chief Inspector of Air Accidents has ordered a formal investigation.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing sympathy for the families of those injured and missing.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his full statement about this very unfortunate incident. May I extend on my own behalf, as constituency Member, and on behalf of my party and colleagues our sympathy to the families of those who have lost their lives and to those who have been injured, apparently seriously. This is just another example of how risky a business it is to win oil from the North sea and of how thousands of people every day are putting their lives at risk on behalf of the whole community. We should be grateful to them for that.
I have a few specific questions for the Secretary of State relating to the incident. Does he acknowledge that a similar helicopter, a Sikorsky S-61, burst into flames and crashed into the North sea—fortunately, without loss of life—on 13 July 1988 and that we have not yet received the accident investigation report? It has apparently been delayed for administrative reasons. Does the Secretary of State accept that we should not have to wait so long? In the case of this incident, will he ensure that a report is prepared more speedily? Will he also ensure that a fatal accident inquiry is set in motion as quickly as possible? I understand that an inquiry has been called for by British International Helicopters. I believe that an inquiry will be welcomed by the whole community. Does he accept that

such incidents show how important offshore safety must be in all operations in the North sea? Once again, we are extremely grateful to those who put their lives at risk.

Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in my former job I went offshore to various platforms and rigs. I confirm what he says. We take for granted the work of people who produce great wealth for the country at some risk to themselves.
I shall look into the question about the air accident investigation branch report on the fatal accident two years ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the AAIB is a highly regarded body and it has been very busy recently. In particular, the Lockerbie investigation has taken up a tremendous amount of its time. However, I shall make sure that that report is issued as soon as possible.
The fatal accident inquiry is a matter not for me but for the Scottish legal authorities. I am sure that they will get on with making the necessary arrangements.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of safety in the North sea. The Department of Transport uniquely funds research into helicopter operations and safety in conjuction with the Department of Energy, the Civil Aviation Authority and the United Kingdom offshore operators. So we recognise the importance of safety and, above all, the importance of safety in helicopters, which are a key way of moving people about the North sea.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: At this moment, are there not only two things that matter—first, on behalf of the whole House, to express our deep sadness over the incident; and, secondly, again on behalf of the whole House, to express our deepest sympathy to the families of those involved?

Mr. Parkinson: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Doran: May I, too, extend my sympathy to the families and friends of those involved in the incident? Since I heard about the incident, I have spent a great deal of time on the telephone talking to people from my constituency who work offshore or represent those who work offshore. There is a genuine sense of anger today about the incident. It is the latest in a long line of such incidents. We have had 250 deaths in the North sea on offshore installations and vessels alone. There have been 74 deaths in helicopters, not counting any deaths arising out of today's incident. That is a shocking total.
I wish to raise one important specific point with the Secretary of State. I understand that a survey was carried out recently on the Kittiwake platform, which is going through the hook-up process. In that survey, 36 people were found not to have offshore survival certificates, which hitherto were regarded as mandatory. The Secretary of State will be aware from his experience that helicopter evacuation is an essential part of that training process. If the survey results are correct—again, it is a shocking indictment of the attitude of the oil companies to safety in the North sea—will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the question of offshore survival certificates is investigated as part of the process of investigating this incident?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman strikes a wrong note when he talks about increased helicopter accidents. There is no discernible trend of increase in the number of


accidents in helicopters. I am sure that he is as pleased as I am that for the past three years there have been no fatal accidents. There were two bad tragedies in the mid-1980s, but the record has not worsened. It is misleading for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it has.
I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point about Kittiwake. I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will look into the matter.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that all hon. Members whose Scottish constituencies have offshore workers will be saddened by today's accident. Does he agree that the investigation branch always does its work splendidly and thoroughly after such accidents, and that if anything is found during the investigation that requires immediate action it is dealt with immediately and all operators are instructed to implement the requirements? Does he agree that we should not require the full report before taking any necessary action to ensure that operations are safe?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, the formal investigation that the chief inspector authorised is the highest priority investigation. The report will come forward in two stages. Any immediate lessons will be learned and information will be disseminated throughout the industry. In addition, a full report will follow, which will be published.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As a Member of Parliament from north-east Scotland, may I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the sincere comments that other hon. Members have addressed to families who have lost members and the seriously injured? I also pay tribute to the rescue services, including the crew and staff of RAF Nimrod from my home town of Lossiemouth.
Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the time scale that he invisages for the report's production? We all wish to see it undertaken quickly because of its implications. Do the Government have a view about the type of insurance policy advocated for such companies? Surely one of the difficulties that the families of the deceased will face is that of finance.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for her opening remarks.
The chief inspector will get on with the work and report as soon as possible. He sets his own timetable and wants to do the job thoroughly, which he will. I will convey to him the hon. Lady's views. I do not know about the insurance policies, but I shall find out and let the hon. Lady know.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The all-party group on energy studies will visit Shell in Aberdeen during the recess and we shall be able to express our condolences direct to the people involved. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the S-61 is a good helicopter with a good accident record? Does he agree that, although the winning of oil and gas from the North sea is a risky business, travelling to and from the rigs is not necessarily the most risky part of it, and that the record in our sector compares favourably with that of the Norwegian sector?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the S-61 has a good safety record on the whole: there has been one fatal accident in S-61 operations in the past 10 years. We should not draw up a league table in the North

sea between the Norwegians and us. We both want to do everything possible to avoid accidents, which operators on both sides of the North sea do.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On behalf of myself and others, may I join in the expressions of sympathy for those who have suffered loss and serious injury in the accident, and pay tribute to the rescue services.
While I accept that it is impossible to make snap judgments on the information available, will the Secretary of State say whether weather was a factor at the time? Does he understand that the most urgent need is to determine whether the S-61 is similar to that which at one time suffered a spate of gearbox trouble? That must be determined as quickly as possible, and, if necessary, such helicopters will have to he grounded in the interests of the safety of people who continue to use them. Will he assure us that that will be done as quickly as possible because there will be great worry and concern among those people who have to fly over the North sea every day and their relatives?

Mr. Parkinson: I confirm that, although there was a little fog and cloud about in the North sea earlier today, visibility was about two miles. Therefore, visibility does not appear to have been a factor.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about snap judgments. The S-61 has a good record, but I shall ensure that the accident investigation branch is made aware of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. John Prescott: May I join the Secretary of State and other hon. Members in offering our condolences and deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who are injured or missing, and yet again record our admiration for and thanks to the rescue services, on behalf of the survivors.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Sikorsky S-61 has been involved in three losses in the past two years and eight ditchings in the past 20 years; and that, according to my information, a door fell off one yesterday? This anxiety is shared by many oil workers, and it is also highlighted in the Civil Aviation Authority's report, which the Secretary of State received yesterday. May I suggest that he reads that report about helicopter safety?
In the light of experience of inquiries, may I add my voice to those of others who have asked the right hon. Gentleman to press the Crown Office to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in the fatal accident inquiry? As for the excellent aviation inspector's formal investigations, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no extraordinary pressures are brought to bear, as happened in the case of the Boeing company over the loss of the Chinook helicopter in 1986, when the inspector's report was delayed by more than two years? That caused unnecessary anguish among the relatives of the 45 men who died in it.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. It appears that, once again, the rescue services have performed superbly.
I repeat what I have already said about helicopter safety: in the past 10 years there has been one fatal accident involving an S-61, so there is no reason to make sweeping remarks about the aircraft. The hon. Gentleman should do nothing to suggest that he has made a snap


judgment, which would cause unnecessary concern on the part of the relatives of those who are still working today in the North sea.
As the hon. Gentleman heard me tell the House, the fatal accident inquiry is a matter not for me but for the Law Officers. I shall convey to them the fact that the House feels that the matter should be treated urgently. I cannot do more than that; they must make their own arrangements, and I am sure that they will.
The accident investigation branch caries out its work, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) kindly said, in a most thorough way which has earned it worldwide recognition as the leading operator in this area. I am sure that it will do its job as thoroughly and quickly as possible.

Defence (Options for Change)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
In the defence debate last month, I set out the basis on which we have been considering options for change in defence. I would now like to advise the House of the broad proposals that we are considering and on which we will now be consulting with the NATO authorities and our allies, with the defence industries, and, most importantly, with all those directly affected in the armed forces and the MOD's civilian staff. My statement today follows the publication this morning of a valuable report from the Select Committee on Defence on the defence implications of recent events in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
The declaration issued at the NATO summit meeting here in London earlier this month said:
Europe has entered a new, promising era … This alliance must and will adapt".
The "Options for Change" have identified the ways in which our forces might be restructured by the mid-1990s in the light of these developments. The pace of change will depend upon the signature and implementation of a Conventional Forces in Europe agreement, on the progress of the two-plus-four talks, and on how quickly Soviet troops leave eastern Europe and other Soviet forces are run down. The precise shape of our contributions to NATO must reflect discussions yet to come with the NATO authorities and with our allies.
In the options for change studies, we have sought to devise a structure for our regular forces appropriate to the new security situation and meeting our essential peacetime operational needs. The framework that we have provided would be reinforced in a period of tension by drawing on volunteer reserves and reservists, who will have an important role to play. We have also allowed for the possible need to build back up our forces over a longer period should international circumstances ever require us to do so.
There clearly are opportunities but also risks in Europe; and elsewhere some worrying trends—not least, the proliferation of sophisticated weapons systems. We shall therfore continue to need a robust defence capability as our insurance against the unexpected. Our armed forces, albeit at lower levels, will be as important a safeguard for our country in the future as they have been in the past.
Our proposals will bring savings and a reduction in the share of GDP taken by defence. We need force levels which we can afford and which can realistically be manned, given demographic pressures in the 1990s. The aim is smaller forces, better equipped, properly trained and housed, and well motivated. They will need to be flexible and mobile and able to contribute both in NATO and, if necessary, elsewhere.
What I now have to put before the House are some proposals for change and some elements that will not change.
We shall retain our strategic deterrent with a four-boat Trident force. In accordance with NATO policy for an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, based in Europe, we shall also need a sub-strategic force of dual-capable Tornados with a stand-off missile.
We must also continue to ensure the effective defence of the United Kingdom itself. A comprehensive air defence capability will still be essential, although with a smaller fighter force than had been planned. The United Kingdom fighter force would be held at seven squadrons of air-defence Tornados, supplemented by armed Hawks, and the remaining two Phantom squadrons would be withdrawn. We plan to retain at about present levels our home defence forces and our capability to deal with hostile mine-laying in home waters. We shall sustain our contribution in support of the police in Northern Ireland. For as long as they are needed, we will provide forces for our dependent territories and other overseas responsibilities in the Falklands, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Belize and—until 1997—Hong Kong.
We will continue to play our full part in the defence of Europe. We will continue to deploy forces in Germany alongside our German and other allies, a contribution which is, I know, warmly welcomed by the German Government. We envisage that, in the changed circumstances of the mid-1990s, our stationed forces could be roughly half their present strength. When reinforced from the United Kingdom, our Army contribution could comprise about two divisions, rather than four as at present. Our contribution will need to be shaped with that of our allies to fit the new force structures which we expect to see in the central region.
We expect to reduce the RAF presence in Germany from four bases to two. We envisage retaining Harrier and helicopter forces there. As Germany takes on the air-policing responsibility for its territory, we would envisage phasing out our air-defence contribution. We envisage maintaining six squadrons of Tornado aircraft in Germany and the United Kingdom with nuclear and conventional roles in Europe. The two variants of Tornado will provide the backbone of the future Royal Air Force. Aircraft not deployed in peacetime will be retained for use should we need to build back up our capability.
In view of Chancellor Kohl's request that troops of the three western powers should stay in Berlin as long as Soviet forces are in the present German Democratic Republic, we envisage continuing to contribute to an allied presence, including an RAF contingent, for this period in Berlin. We intend to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term, the role of which will include reinforcement of NATO's northern region. We shall also maintain an air contribution, to the defence of the northern region, but we are looking again at the future requirement for the United Kingdom mobile force.
Elsewhere in our maritime contribution, we need to take account of the decline in the size of the Soviet navy but also of its continuing modernisation, especially with new classes of submarine. We propose to maintain three carriers, update their Sea Harrier aircraft and, subject to satisfactory progress, proceed with the EH 101 helicopter programme. I envisage a future destroyer/frigate force of about 40 ships. The reduction would be achieved by paying off older, less capable ships. In addition to Trident, we envisage a future submarine force of about 16 boats of which three quarters would be nuclear powered. We see the Buccaneer force in the anti-ship role being replaced by dual-capable Tornados redeployed from Germany and re-equipped with Sea Eagle missiles. There would be a small reduction in Nimrod numbers.
A capability for other contingencies would be provided by establishing a strategic reserve division bringing

together amphibious, parachute, airmobile and armoured formations with roles also in Europe or in national defence.
I have described how we now see the armed forces evolving in the period to 1995. These proposals are now for further study and consultation with NATO and or Brussels treaty partners. When we are able to take final decisions will depend on many factors, not least progress in the autumn on CFE talks, a successful outcome to the two-plus-four talks, a clear timetable for Soviet withdrawals from Europe, and the pace of discussions with our allies on the evolution of NATO strategy and operational concepts.
We shall want in particular fully to consult the German Government over changes in our deployments in Germany. We aim to move in an orderly and properly planned way to our new force structure, after the consultations that I have described and when the necessary conditions have been met. We shall at the same time conduct a detailed scrutiny of our equipment plans, including our research and development effort, to ensure that they would be in keeping with our changed requirements.
Work remains to be done on detailed force structures and on changes in the support area, where we will be looking for substantial savings, before we can clarify the implications for individual units. We envisage in broad terms by the mid-1990s a Regular Army of about 120,000, Royal Navy/Royal Marines of about 60,000 and a Royal Air Force of about 75,000. On that basis, the overall reduction in regular service manpower would be about 18 per cent. We expect our civilian numbers to be similarly reduced. The volunteer reserves will continue to play a key role, and we wish to consider the appropriate numbers for the future, having regard to our needs and realistic levels of recruitment and retention.
There will now be further work on the detailed implications of these broad proposals. Their costs will, of course, be within the expenditure plans published in the last public expenditure White Paper. Revised figures for defence expenditure will be announced as part of the Government's decisions on the total public expenditure programme in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement. In respect of the current year, the House is aware that I am taking steps to constrain expenditure within the agreed provision. Announcements have been made on aircraft. Consistent with our longer-term plans, we shall be easing back on Army recruiting and retiring early several ships and submarines, and making some other short-term changes to the programme which will be announced shortly.
This country has owed a great debt to its armed services throughout its history. Their abilities and professionalism are not something that can be lightly discarded and then easily recalled when they may suddenly be needed. We have a duty to tell them what we believe the future is likely to hold for them at a time when the pace and scale of events in Europe offer real opportunities for change.
We believe that the new force structures that we envisage can give us strong and reliable defences, in changing circumstances, and at an affordable cost. Our proposals provide for us to continue to make a major contribution to the north Atlantic alliance as it adapts to the changes that its resolution and cohesion have done so much to make possible.
It is a time of opportunity and hope for change, yet without putting at risk the safe protection of our country nor neglecting fair consideration of those whose task that is. Our aim is an orderly and planned transition to the new world now unfolding, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: The House welcomes the statement. For a while, it was uncertain whether we would have it before the House rose, and today was both the first and last possible time to have it. The statement is the first useful step in the consideration of our response to changing events. As the Secretary of State said, it dovetails with the report of the Select Committee on Defence. I am sure that the House will agree that many of the changes set out in the statement will come as a consequence of arms control and of Soviet withdrawals from Germany.
I realise that the statement was lengthy, and that many hon. Members wish to ask questions about it, but some points must be made. What significance does the withdrawal of two Army divisions have for equipment requirements, and in particular the orders for the replacement of the Challenger tanks? What implications will that have for the proposed multinational force? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his NATO allies about what form this will take?
The Secretary of State said that the two variants of Tornado will provide the backbone of the RAF. Where does this leave the European fighter aircraft programme? How many of the proposed nuclear-capable aircraft will be in Germany? Have the German Government been consulted about this? My understanding is that there is widespread reluctance within Germany to accept this nuclear-equipped aircraft and nuclear weapons. What is the basis for this hosting programme?
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the Select Committee on Defence has expressed considerable reservations about the tactical air-to-surface missile project. The House is entitled to know roughly what the costs of this programme will be and from where the weapons will be procured. Will they be American or Franco-British?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that this is the first occasion on which he has recognised that there are Soviet naval reductions? On a number of occasions we have had lectures about the Soviet naval procurement programme. In the light of these reductions, and in the light of the reduction in our Navy to about 40 frigates, will there be a replacement for the type 42? There will be all-party relief at his remarks about the EH 101 programme, about which there was great anxiety. His remarks will be taken as encouragement.
The significance of the announcements to service morale will not be lost on the House. In his statement, the Secretary of State suggests that there could be a reduction in recruitment, almost hinting at natural wastage as one of the solutions to the personnel problem. Will he confirm that natural wastage will not be the only method of securing reductions in troop numbers? Will he concede that it will be necessary to change the nature of service conditions and to attract to the services, for the new types of forces that he has recommended, a different breed of

soldier who may well have to be paid more and who will certainly be looking for better conditions than those that have been suggested recently?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the absence of any reference to an extended out-of-area role is in line with the views expressed in the Select Committee's report? Will he also confirm that we are seeing here an operation that will be working within the existing limits of British capabilities and that we will not have an enhanced out-of-area capability?
The Secretary of State's proposals will require much consideration within the House and outside. A number of people involved in the defence industries and the services have made a great contribution to the defence of Britain and they must be taken account of at this time.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make the financial implications of the changes known to the House as soon as possible and ensure that we have an early debate when the House returns after the recess or as soon as the autumn statement is available, so that we can discern the economic consequences of the cuts? They will mean little to the House without a price tag attached to them.
Will the Secretary of State arrange perhaps a two-day debate in Government time as soon as the House resumes so that we can examine properly the implications of his useful contribution to what we regard as a process which will be far longer and more extensive than he described today.

Mr. King: The House must respect the hon. Gentleman's courage. He rose to his feet with hon. Members behind him who are pledged, under a Labour party conference motion, to slash defence expenditure by as much as £9,000 million, and then made a moving speech on behalf of the workers in Leeds who hope to provide tanks, the workers of Westland who hope to provide helicopters and the workers in Edinburgh and Lancashire who hope to produce the EFA. We hope that it will be possible to proceed on all those projects, and I note his great concern for their future.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that this is a first useful step in putting forward proposals in response to the changing circumstances. I suspect that only the Conservative party will put forward concrete proposals on the matter. We shall look forward with great interest to a coherent response from the Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman referred to consultation in respect of the other proposals that I made. I sought to emphasise that I am putting forward a number of proposals on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in respect of our future defence structure which are precisely for consultation because we are determined to play our proper and full part in the NATO alliance.
The hon. Gentleman referred to TASM and the sub-strategic missiles with dual capable aircraft, but he will know that only this month the NATO summit here in London made the unanimous statement that there should be an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional weapons based in Europe, and my announcement is absolutely consistent with that.
I am not hinting at natural wastage. I regard the opportunity to ensure that we make a proper, orderly and planned change as a virtue. We hope to achieve that in a way that takes proper account of the lifetime of service that many have given. We want to make changes to the


new structure in an orderly and planned way. That is a duty that we have to those in the armed forces, and it is one that the Government are determined to discharge.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a major statement, and the House will be aware that there is another statement to follow and then the Report stage—for which 45 groups of amendments have been tabled—and Third Reading of a Bill. I regret that I must impose some limit, and so will allow questions on this statement to continue until 5 o'clock. I ask for single questions, please.

Mr. Michael Mates: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the Select Committee's report, which I hope is an analysis of the circumstances in which changes are taking place, and which I hope will be helpful to the House. I strongly recommend it as holiday reading.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the thoughtful way in which he has produced the proposals for change, which must now be debated extensively and discussed in detail. He rightly said that it is in the context of our NATO obligations that we will decide the final shape of our forces. How does he envisage NATO making its options for change known, and how does he envisage that developing as the collective response to the changed circumstances in western Europe?

Mr. King: Our allies have made certain statements. For example, Chancellor Kohl announced a figure of 370,000 for the Bundeswehr for a united Germany. Other NATO allies have also made proposals. It is now urgent that NATO gets together with the various elements and components to determine how that might develop.
I did not respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about the concept of multinationality. There is the possibility of a multinational corps in which we could make a significantcontribution. That is the way to go forward.
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Select Committee, had to say and for the encouragement expressed in the report for the view that it is necessary to tell as soon as possible all those who work in the armed forces about the likely shape for the future. That is the purpose of my statement. I shall honour my pledge of a genuine opportunity for consultation so that the charges can be orderly and sensible, with the maximum involvement of those concerned.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the broad thrust of the proposals as a first step for conventional forces. I support the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for a fleet of four Trident submarines. I hope that he will understand my disappointment that, as yet, no consideration has been given to the suggestion that the number of warheads to be deployed should be no greater than those presently deployed in the Polaris system.
The right hon. Gentleman should understand that there will be great disappointment about the suggestion that the United Kingdom might seek to deploy the tactical air-to-surface missile. There may be a NATO case for the deployment of that weapon, but thus far no compelling evidence has been produced to justify the United Kingdom embarking upon that course.

Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's general welcome, even though he let himself down a little at the end of his remarks. The biggest. waste of money conceivable would be to have a nuclear deterrent that was not credible and not effective. That is the base line. There is no point in having a deterrent if it is not likely to work and is not likely to provide the deterrent effect that we seek. The deterrent has proved to be the biggest life saver in the history of man, and we are determined to maintain that capability. That is my first point.
Secondly, our policy is absolutely clear in the sense that the background to my statement today is the success of the policy to which we have held over the years. Part of that is not to depend solely on a strategic nuclear deterrent but to have a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent. That of course has the unanimous agreement of NATO.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the caution with which he has made his statement today, both as to the size of the possible economies and the time scale within which they may be available, will be much welcomed on this side of the House? Will he continue to reaffirm that the reason why he is able to make his statement—cautiously optimistic as it is—is precisely because this Government supported the policies of the NATO alliance, which brought about the reassessment of Soviet foreign policy, against continual opposition from the Labour party at every stage? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he sees the ever-increasing costs of weapons procurement within a constrained defence budget being met unless we recognise the need for ever-wider international co-operation in weapons procurement?

Mr. King: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. The leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as one of my predecessors, in standing firm at a critical moment in our history, is now viewed by many as the turning point that opened up the possibility of the wonderful changes that we have seen. One might have hoped that some of those lessons would at last be appreciated by some Labour Members.
We now begin an intensive period of examination of force structures, equipment programmes and support arrangements. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley made the point that our allies face similar challenges. I spoke to our major allies this afternoon, and they are considering at this moment the difficult challenges that confront them. We shall wherever possible examine taking advantage of co-operation and cost sharing in programmes.

Mr. Michael Foot: As far as I can see, the Secretary of State's statement makes no reference—any more than did his defence statement of a few weeks ago—to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, even though it comes up for possible renewal or may end in a few months. The Government must surely have a policy on that issue. Do not the Government understand that, especially in the light of the most welcome ending of the cold war, far and away the worst danger of the world being blown to pieces is the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries? If Defence Ministers in other parts of the world listen to the Secretary of State, it might be a recipe


for the multiplication of their weapons. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government will take to make the nuclear non-proliferation treaty truly effective?

Mr. King: The House will certainly hand to the right hon. Gentleman any award for consistency of position, no matter how consistently wrong that position has been. Our position has always been abundantly clear. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot distinguish the benefits that have come from our possession of a deterrent and the sensible maintenance of it, there is little that 1 can add to the length of previous debates.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his measured and orderly response to the challenge of the momentous events in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. He will recall the disastrous effects of some of the cuts of the past—from the mindless disarmament talks in the 1930s to the more recent cuts that affected the Army's regimental system in the 1960s and 1970s. To help Army morale, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that we will not repeat the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s?

Mr. King: I hoped in my statement to give a broad outline of our proposals. There have been some very worrying rumours suggesting that the reductions in the Army would be much more substantial, and the figure of 80,000 was quoted, implying that one in two people in the Army would lose their jobs. I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance about the numbers and the time scale.
The defence staff and the chiefs of staff have worked quite excellently on what I have been able to say today. We now want to widen the circle so that the individual services can also address the particular problems that they have to address and we can therefore have a wider involvement of people. That is the best way to achieve a more sensible outcome.
I do not conceal from the House the fact that we will have to face some very difficult decisions and problems. However, throughout the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence there is a recognition that this is an opportunity for change. If it can be a movement towards a smaller and better defence structure for our country, it is to be welcomed.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Is not this statement a case of no serious change and no significant savings? Are not the Government guilty of extreme cowardice in failing to face up to the opportunities for disarmament and so transfer resources from war to peace? Will not the consequences be a slowdown in world disarmament and an increase in arms proliferation as other countries quote Britain's military posture as a reason for their actions?

Mr. King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman talks to the leader of his party about his policy. However, he may have noticed that my statement today, in certain important respects, follows on from the outcome of the NATO summit. He may not have noticed that, when the Leader of the Opposition was in Washington and talking about developments in Europe and the NATO summit agreement, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was good to be alive. I am not sure whether that spirit has quite spread to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Julian Amery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on making it clear that the reductions that he envisages will depend not just on agreement over Soviet withdrawal and disarmament, but on the achievement of what is agreed. May I also congratulate him on making it clear that British forces will remain in Germany? The presence of British and French forces in Germany is fundamental under the Brussels treaty to the maintanance of the European Community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that developments in the Gulf over the past few days have made it clear that we may well have to share responsibility for out-of-area operations?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind welcome for what I have said today. With regard to the continuing presence of British forces in Germany, it has always been made clear to me by the German Government and NATO that stationed forces—those of the United States, the British and our other allies—are an important element in the cohesion of the alliance.
With regard to my right hon. Friend's second point about developments elsewhere, whatever implications such developments may have for us, in many areas the world is not a very steady and safe place at the moment. It is very important for the basic needs of this country, with its responsibilities, alliances, interests and connections, that we maintain an adequate defence capability.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I welcome the undertaking to continue the commitment to Northern Ireland, but would it be possible to increase the number of specialist elements, including the supply of helicopters, which are urgently needed by the Regular Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the police, particularly in the light of yesterday's atrocity.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for noting that I confirmed our determination to maintain our contribution. We will certainly consider specialist aspects. There is always a steady stream of requests for one thing or another, as I know very well, wearing one hat or another. We will certainly seek to respond to those requests as effectively as we can.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: May I commend my right hon. Friend on his timely statement and on appearing to get the balance about right in these crucial matters? I wish him well in carrying out the restructuring and making sure that we shift slowly towards a maritime strategy as opposed to a continental one. In that context, I note the considerable reduction in submarines.
I wish my right hon. Friend well in making sure that his future programme is led by strategic needs and not by the considerable pressures of the Treasury Bench.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend waited until my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had withdrawn before embarking on that brave sally. Certainly we have tried to strike a fair balance. I understand why my hon. Friend picked up my point about the change in submarine numbers from 27 to 16. The reduction appears bigger than the reality. The Soviet Union is reducing the number of submarines but introducing more capable, effective and modern submarines. That is exactly what we shall be doing.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State agree that the first challenge which faces him in his restructuring task is to preserve the high quality and motivation of British service men, who are so widely admired throughout the western alliance? His second challenge is to find the right strategic decision when no one can foresee the strategic shape of things to come. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the lack of agreement on CFE and two-plus-four; he might have mentioned instability in the Soviet Union. Therefore, he is quite right to resist the temptation to cut the services ruthlessly and arbitrarily. If the House is entitled to look for a peace dividend, the services are entitled to look for a services dividend. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the force structure that he envisages for the strategic reserve division?

Mr. King: The whole House knows the keen interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in these matters. I am extremely grateful for what he said. Now that our words go rather further afield, I know that his comments will be deeply appreciated by our armed forces who serve in many parts of the world. On a day when two of them have just been awarded the George medal, it is a reminder of the professionalism and courage that they bring to bear in quite unexpected circumstances and of the debt that we owe them.
The exact structure of the strategic reserve division will require further consideration. I have tried to set out the elements that will be within it, and that work will now be carried forward.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement today illustrates the fact that a multi-balanced force reduction approach is more appropriate than a unilateralist approach? He would not have been able to make reductions without reductions on the other side of the iron curtain. Will he say a little more about the future of amphibious capability, as many of us take the view that the Royal Marines and the flexibility they provide are particularly appropriate to modern defence?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I made it clear that we intend to maintain an amphibious capability in the longer term. Obviously, that includes the capability of marine commandos to discharge their amphibious work. The House knows that we are considering the vessels that are required for that, but it is important that we maintain that capability which provides the flexibility and mobility that will become increasingly important if we have lower force structures and levels.

Mr. John Cartwright: In adding my welcome to the broad objectives of the statement, may I put it to the Secretary of State that, in an uncertain world, it is prudent common sense for Britain to maintain an effective minimum nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future? As the sub-strategic systems are just as important as the four-boat Trident force, when will the Secretary of State be able to announce a decision on the weapons system to be carried by the Tornado?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close and well-informed interest in these matters which qualifies him to contribute to defence debates in the House. On the latter point, as he knows, we are considering two alternatives—the American and the

French options. I cannot give him a precise date, but by the end of the year we hope to have formed a view on that. I cannot say anything more precise than that.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many thousands of people with the sort of experiences of my generation will regard this as a sensible package, above all because we retain the capability to meet unforeseen circumstances, albeit at a lower level? Will he ensure that the three services can, within the overall figures, make their proposals for reductions and give their ideas on the new form of services? Will he say how pleased many thousands of people will be that the Harrier and EH101 programmes are to proceed?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a distinguished record. Obviously, the House listens with great respect to his comments. He may be interested in the quotation that I found today, which says of the Korean war:
It was a contingency which took the British Government and its military Chiefs of Staff by surprise; the first of many in following years to make unexpected and irresistible claims on money and manpower.
We certainly hope that we shall not face anything like that again. My job is not to take risks but to ensure that, if what we do not want to happen occurs, we can defend ourselves. My hon. Friend knows the importance of that better than any. In answer to his two points, yes, I hope that that will be possible.

Mr. John McWilliam: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to make a statement before the recess, but may I press him for a debate when we return? Will he give the House the benefit of his thinking on the threat assessment, which led him to his conclusion to go ahead with the tactical air-to-surface missile? How many ships does he intend to decommission, given that we have about 40 frigates and destroyers? In view of the importance of the statement to the economy of the fourth poorest country in the world, will he reassure the House that today's announcement does not entail any change to his previous statement about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas?

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has a good line to my right hon, and learned Friend the Leader of the House and he will have heard the hon. Gentleman's first comment. I would welcome the opportunity for a debate, the timing of which can be discussed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of frigates. The current number is 48 and, as I said, it will decrease to about 40 through decommissioning or disposing of some older frigates. There will not be an equivalent reduction in capability. I am aware of the statement on the Gurkhas made by my predecessor in May last year.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most welcome part of his statement was the undertaking that the reductions are entirely dependent on successful CFE and two-plus-four talks, and the reduction of Soviet troops in eastern Europe? Can he assure us that he is aware that, at a time when he is reducing manpower in the services, it has never been more important to ensure that our troops are given


the best possible equipment available in the world, whether tanks or whatever, regardless of where it is manufactured?

Mr. King: I again confirm that what I have said today is conditional on the developments going in the direction that we want them to go. We can change direction or arrest development and build back up if our hopes are dashed. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) picked up the phrase "service dividend". I attach importance to that, as well as to any implication of savings called a peace dividend. In a service dividend I certainly include equipment which is reliable, which works and for which there are spares, so that we can ensure better equipped, even if smaller, armed forces.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State, in simple and straightforward terms, tell the House exactly how much money the Government envisage saving as a result of his statement? Will he confirm that there will be an early opportunity for debate, particularly as the announcement that four Trident submarines will be based on the Clyde will be met with bitter resentment in Scotland? Will there be an opportunity in the course of that debate to explore why the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman did not carry through the clear declaration from the Labour party conference in Scotland that it did not wish Trident submarines to be based on the Clyde?

Mr. King: On the first point, which I sought to cover in my statement, I cannot give an answer to the hon. Lady, for the obvious reason that I have set out our policy. We believe that this is the right approach to the defence strategy of our country. We must now examine the matter in detail and cost in detail the implications of it. I have talked about an 18 per cent. reduction in the level of our armed forces, equivalent reductions in civilian manpower, the need to examine the support area for equivalent savings, and the need to examine our procurement budget and weapons system as well. The outcome of that will produce significant savings during the later part of the year.
As I have told the House, as for this year, I am facing serious problems with transitional costs and inflation. I have already announced to the House certain savings that we must make. We shall obviously live within whatever cash base line we have for this year. That is the answer to the first point about money.
On the second point, I do not want to intrude on private grief between the hon. Lady and whichever is the nuclear wing of the Labour party.

Sir Hector Monro: Following my right hon. Friend's most constructive statement, will he give an assurance that the regimental system will be maintained and that the old regimental area and county names and Scottish regimental names will be retained? In view of the statement by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), I assure my right hon. Friend that Scotland will play its full part in the defence of the United Kingdom with pleasure.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can give him that confirmation. Unlike the Opposition spokesman, we believe that the regimental system has real relevance and is a valuable part of our structure. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr.

O'Neill) should say that he no longer regards it as relevant. I have no doubt that he will live to regret his remark very much. Anybody who knows anything about the Army deeply believes in the importance of the regimental system.

Mr. David Lambie: When will the Government recognise that England is no longer an imperial power? Instead of continuing with the overseas commitments that the Secretary of State has announced today, in the present political and military climate, is it not about time that we withdrew completely from those commitments? Now that the Soviet Union has agreed to withdraw Soviet forces from eastern Europe within four years, why does not the Secretary of State announce that we shall withdraw British forces from the mainland of western Europe in the same time scale?

Mr. King: I am not pretending that we are an imperial power; I am making it clear that we are a loyal member of an alliance. I am interested to know whether it is the hon. Gentleman's party's policy to dishonour an alliance and to betray the allies with whom we have stood for 45 years. If that is his policy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed for clarifying the future of the armed forces as well as the wider community. Will he give an assurance that the welcome plan to form the new division to bring together our various land and air capabilities will take full account of the present instabilities in the middle east, not only in the Persian gulf but in other parts of the middle east where there are considerable threats to security and the supply of oil to western Europe.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I commented earlier on instabilities in the world. Certainly we must recognise that the proliferation of weapons and the tensions combine in a worrying way at this time. We are certainly aware of that.

Mr. Bruce George: It may be possible in two years' time to cut even more substantially the present force levels. Most people would agree that, because there are so many uncertainties, prudence is necessary in the meantime. The cuts that have already been announced are substantial and will hurt deeply. If, as appears to be correct, the Soviet naval building programme continues and the Royal Navy is unable adequately to meet its existing commitments with about 50 frigates and destroyers, how can the Secretary of State believe that with about 40 frigates and destroyers there will be no loss of capability? I await anxiously his reply. I simply do not believe that it will be possible to cut to 40 without having to reduce capability. Is the Secretary of State considering reducing capability?

Mr. King: Our naval capability has to be matched to our assessment of the threat, as it has been in the past. As I have already made clear, the Soviet numbers are being reduced. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the enhanced capability and quality of the new submarines are high. Our changes are in much the same direction. We know the enhanced capability of our newer submarines. The reduction in submarine and frigate numbers relates to older boats. We shall seek to ensure that a balance is kept.
I ought to warn the hon. Gentleman—he may not be aware of this—that his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who is the shadow


spokesman on defence, used the phrase, "This is something that we shall have to pay very close attention to," when referring to a new study, published today, that proposes that no more tanks, frigates or attack submarines should be bought. Apparently, the European fighter aircraft will be cancelled, but Trident will be kept. I do not know whether that is the new Labour party policy, but it shows how confused it is getting.

Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend's statement will be admired well beyond the House. Within the NATO alliance, however, there are certain nations, and many more political parties, that wish more drastic cuts to be made in their national defence structures than that which my right hon. Friend suggests for the United Kingdom. Will he bear in mind the fact that the CFE negotiations in Vienna are not going as well as might have been expected? We hope that a treaty will be signed in December, but until it is signed, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear in NATO that our defence structures must stay as strong as he has suggested and that we must not give way to demands for a peace dividend?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are trying to get the balance right. There have been massive changes. Whatever happens in Vienna, it is difficult to believe that east Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia will shortly return as fully paid-up membes of the Warsaw pact, as they were, say, two years ago. The position in the Soviet Union is much more uncertain; there are enormous tensions there. That is why I believe that the balance that I have put before the House today is the right one to strike.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Before the right hon. Gentleman's statement, Britain was spending 40 per cent. more of its gross domestic product on defence than West Germany, although West Germany is closer to the Soviet Union than we are. However, his statement means that we shall be spending a greater proportion of our gross domestic product on defence than West Germany. How does he justify that?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining in the debate. We know that he speaks for the majority of Labour party members. At the Labour party conference, the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and Bruce Kent carried their motion by a 2:1 majority against the Opposition Front Bench, so he is entitled to speak, and he speaks with authority. He wants a £9 billion cut in the defence budget, so it is either the end of the Royal Navy, or the end of the Royal Air Force, or both.
My announcement will lead to a reduction in our armed forces from 310,000 to some 255,000. In Moscow, Chancellor Kohl announced a figure of 370,000 for the Bundeswehr in Germany. That is for a country that does not carry responsibilities that some other countries have to bear. I am not sure whether behind his question lies the proposal that we should shift to conscription. Anybody who examines the financial costs knows that one of the reasons why German costs could be lowered is that Germany does not have a volunteer army: it has conscription.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome the soundness of my right hon. Friend's statement, but will

he confirm that the retention of trained personnel will be of even more importance in the future? Will he emphasise the role of the services in the peace dividend?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that he understands that we shall approach that question positively. I am anxious that the consultation should be meaningful. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out the framework within which we shall work. We shall consider a number of suggestions, such as the one that my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was meant in the statement by
a detailed scrutiny of research and development in keeping with changed requirements"?
I acknowledge that it is a complex subject, that there are many contracts with people and that there is a great deal of talent in the research industries and establishments of this country, so could they not be put to use by British industry? Why is it that our industrial costs are so much greater than those of the Germans and the Japanese in terms of research expertise? Could not an imaginative plan be devised before September or October to help not only the universities but institutions such as the natural history museum, which is important for its research into global warming? We have obligations to skilled people. Can we honour them?

Mr. King: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the sentence means exactly what it says. It may lead in part in the direction in which he looks. We must examine the scale of research and development in defence and decide how much we can afford and what research and development is justified. If that means that we can release resources, they may be able to go to some of the institutions to which he referred.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that both the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment will be delighted with the formation of the new division? I am sure that they will work in friendly rivalry within it.
In all that my right hon. Friend said there is the presumption that Germany will remain within the NATO alliance. However, he knows that there is a very outside chance that the socialists and the greens in Germany will win the election in December. Does he agree that, if that unfortunate circumstance were to come about, there might have to be yet another rethink?

Mr. King: I would have expected my hon. Friend's opening comments. I know of his great loyalty to and support for the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment. As for his question about Germany's membership of NATO, I have always believed that in the end the Soviet Union, whether reluctantly or otherwise, will be forced to accept the democratic decision of the people of East Germany and of a united Germany. It is important for the coherence of NATO that that remains the position.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The statement is a welcome start, but the Secretary of State cannot be accused of seizing opportunities or grasping nettles, let alone of beginning to convert the defence industries. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Select Committee's report. May I therefore appeal to him to pay particular attention to the cautionary remarks of the Select


Committee about the danger of nuclear escalation through the deployment of tactical air-to-surface missiles? Would it not be a vicious irony if a conventional peace dividend were to clear the decks for a nuclear war?

Mr. King: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman ended, because I lost the thread in the middle. Although he may think that my statement was modest, I assure him that its implications will be profound for both those in the armed forces and those who work in support industries. He should reflect on the implications of that. There will also be implications on the procurement side for some of the defence industries. I dare say that even in his surgery he may find people who will not believe that my statement was modest.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that recruiting will continue at a sufficient level to maintain an appropriate profile of age and experience in the armed forces and to ensure that the armed forces continue to provide a worthwhile and rewarding career? Does he share my surprise, indeed incredulity, that the Opposition spokesman should express anxiety about pay in the armed forces when his party held down pay as a matter of policy? As a result, our first act in government was to increase armed forces' pay by 32 per cent. to bring it back in line.

Mr. King: Whatever the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman may say, I shudder to think what the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would propose for armed forces' pay in view of his proposals for defence as a whole.
My hon. Friend's first point was an important one. It will be a challenge for us to ensure that the changes are made in a way that maintains the structure of the armed forces and a sensible age profile. I am under no illusions that that will be a real challenge.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Without casting aspersions on the morals of the Secretary of State, may I say that he sounds like a religious prostitute who said, "Oh God, make me pure, but not yet." [Interruption.] The House should not get so excited; I have waited all this time. We are slower than any other major nation to realise precisely what has happened in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. The Secretary of State and the Government act as if the Russians were about to attack next Thursday. In all conscience, why do the Government not realise that this is not only a militaristic matter? The poor, the sick and the old are waiting for the peace dividend, and it is time that we did something about the money. What does the Secretary of State intend to do, other than being so militaristic or conveying that impression? Do we always need an enemy? Will the enemy continue to be the Soviet Union, or could it be that we are getting weapons together like Gaddafi and others and that the Arabs are the real enemy?

Mr. King: I was in the House last week when the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) had something to say as someone who had fought in the last world war. It was an attitude like that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) which made people believe that they could safely plan on the basis that there would not be a war for the next 10 years. It was the 10-year rule.

That was carried through from a Cabinet to the defence chiefs in 1919 and it rolled forward to 1932. It resulted in soldiers having to exercise with football rattles instead of real ammunition and it left the country dangerously undefended. It is precisely that attitude—

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend fought in the war.

Mr. King: —which assumes that there cannot be a risk in future from which—

Mr. Flannery: Do not be patronising. I was wounded in the last war.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman talks about morals. Our responsibility is to ensure above all the security of our country.

Mr. Robert Key: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his courageous statement, may I ask him to take special care with the 173,000 civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence? Will he bear in mind the fact that health, education and housing costs for soldiers are borne at present by the defence budget but in future will be borne by the civil budget? Will he take particular care to consult the local authorities and the providers of those services?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend's point is beginning to sink in with some Opposition Members. It is that some of the changes may have greater impact in some constituencies than certain Opposition Members appear to appreciate. I certainly take note of the proper concern of my hon. Friend about the position that may arise in his constituency. I understand why he is anxious about it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision not to cancel Trident and thereby save billions of pounds is immoral and outrageous? What will he say to the 139 non-nuclear nations which renounced the possession and deployment of nuclear weapons at the review conference? What does he intend to say in his pompous and arrogant tones? Will he say that, as Secretary of State, he is prepared to be disloyal and to dishonour clause 6 of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which his Government support, which successive Governments have signed, which commits us to getting rid of nuclear weapons and which he is betraying?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting us hear the real voice of the Labour party.

Mr. Cryer: Tell us about the treaty.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows that what he said is not the view of any Labour Front-Bench Member or that of the leader of his party.

Mr. Cryer: Tell me the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. King: I know that the hon. Gentleman holds that conviction passionately and sincerely. I happen to believe that he is profoundly wrong, and that at this very moment the lesson of history proves it.

Dame Janet Fookes: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to maintain or reduce the number


of the Royal Marines, bearing in mind the excellence of that corps and its capacity to turn its hand to almost anything? May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the Government may be considering the amphibious capability but that they have been doing so for longer than I care to remember?

Mr. King: No. we are not considering it—we intend to maintain it. I make that absolutely clear. I ask my hon. Friend not to read anything specific into my statement. I made a broad statement of our approach. I have tried to give as much reassurance and clarification as possible.
Several hon. Members asked about the position and prospects of individual units. I do not anticipate any significant change in the position of the marine commandos. However, I want to have a genuine consultation exercise in which we can carry forward our approach and, under the broad structure that I have defined, consider what the future should be. I do not want to dictate it from the Dispatch Box. I want the people involved to take part in the process.

Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. At least I have been able to produce my own peace dividend by betting that I would be the last to be called!
The Secretary of State's statement tells me two things. First, it is a defeat for the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Secondly. the Secretary of State has missed a wonderful opportunity. The people of Britain expect a peace dividend. The opportunities were there for the Secretary of State to cut defence by as much as 50 per cent. to allow the real problems, not the problems from the Soviet Union, to be addressed, including the education crisis in our schools. homelessness and poverty. We are left, as before, with the best defended cardboard cities and dole queues in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has missed a wonderful opportunity.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's oratory sounds impressive, but why has he totally failed to persuade the leadership of his party of the arguments that he just advanced? He knows that that is not its policy. I have sought to put before the House a sensible response to the changes that have occurred. It will maintain the security of our country against the unexpected. A defence policy must provide that insurance. The hon. Gentleman was wrong on his second point, and completely wrong on the first.

Mr. Cecil Franks: The majority of the House will welcome the commitment to a four-boat Trident submarine fleet. That is good news, not only for those who believe in a credible nuclear deterrent but for my constituents, even if it is bad news for the Opposition and the Labour party in my area.
Will my right hon. Friend clarify one part of his statement? He said that he envisaged a 16-boat submarine fleet, three quarters of which will be nuclear-powered. Will he elaborate on the future shipbuilding programme and, in particular, say whether there is to be a follow-on to the Trafalgar class submarine, a nuclear-powered submarine, the seventh and last of which is currently being completed in Barrow?

Mr. King: For the reasons I gave in relation to the Marines, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not talk in detail about the programmes. We are looking at them now. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we are committed to a four-boat Trident programme and we are looking at the future programme. We see a continuing need for nuclear submarines and to maintain a modern nuclear capability. I would rather not go any further today than my statement.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: According to some newspapers, my right hon. Friend and the chiefs of staff do not see eye to eye. Is that correct, or do the chiefs of staff fully support his approach?

Mr. King: I read those reports, too, as did the chiefs of staff. If I failed to make it clear earlier, I reaffirm my deep appreciation of the work of the Chief of the Defence Staff, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir David Craig, and the chiefs of staff of the individual services. There is a new structure in the Ministry of Defence under the Chief of the Defence Staff which has been responsible for the work I have been able to announce today. Signals have gone out to all the individual services today, and I am pleased to see the positive approach that has been taken. I have referred to the concept of smaller and better. Throughout the services, I think that it is genuinely felt that this is an opportunity to reshape the services on a basis that can provide benefits, albeit on lower force numbers, for the services. I have been encouraged by the positive and helpful way in which the Chief of the Defence Staff and the chiefs of the individual services have responded to the challenge.

Mr. David Martin: With the reduction in the surface fleet, can my right hon. Friend give as much reassurance as possible to me and the people of Portsmouth about the future of the naval base there. the fleet maintenance repair organisation and other supporting roles within the naval base?

Mr. King: I am afraid that I have to give my hon. Friend the same reply as I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). There are some detailed issues that now have to be examined against the broad structure I have described. I do not want to go into that today. They are matters of concern to my hon. Friend, with his close interest in issues affecting his constituency, and we shall try to reach conclusions on them as early as possible.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State accept that his substantial statement today, much of which will have been welcomed by many in the House, will be largely meaningless if price tags are not quickly applied? We urge the Secretary of State to make available all the financial information as early as possible, so that the best and widest possible debate can take place.

Mr. King: That work is in hand now, but I cannot say when it will be ready. As I have said, in part it has to be incorporated within the autumn statement.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my proposed financial settlement for Scottish local authorities for 1991–92.
This is the first year in which the Scottish announcement is in respect of the total level of local authority resources that are determined by the Government—that is, revenue support grant, specific grants and business rates. Collectively, those are known as aggregate external finance. In determining the settlement I have taken into account the views of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed when I met it on 6 July regarding the spending levels that it thought were required for next year. I have also had full regard to the additional burdens facing local authorities and to the scope that undoubtedly exists in local government for improved efficiency.
I propose that aggregate external finance for 1991–92 should be set at £4,338 million. That is £410 million higher than the corresponding figure for the current year. The House will realise that that is substantially more than the application of the normal formula rules to the comparable English settlement would produce. In addition, a further sum of £15 million will be provided for safety netting next year. This also will be the second year in which the safety net has been funded entirely by the Exchequer. So, overall, the settlement amounts to a total of £425 million. Proposals for the distribution of that amount to individual authorities will he announced in the usual way in the autumn.
In reaching this settlement, I have assumed that local authorities will contribute the sum of £10 million in the second year of the Government's policy of moving to a common rate poundage with England and thereby reduce the excess rate burden on Scottish business. I shall announce the total reduction that will be made in business rates next year at a later date, but the fact that the local authorities' contribution has already been taken into account in this settlement means that the reduction in non-domestic rate income will not require a reduction in aggregate Exchequer finance below the figure that I have just announced.
Overall, the settlement that I have announced today is a very fair one. Even if, as COSLA has forecast, authorities were to budget to increase their expenditure next year by as much as 9 per cent.,—that is, close to the current rate of retail prices index inflation—there should be no need for community charges to increase, on average, by more than that amount. And if, particularly with the expected fall in the rate of inflation, authorities increase spending by rather less than 9 per cent.—as I would hope they would—there should be scope for next year's charge levels to be lower in real terms. I hope that Scottish local authorities will also take into account their very high expenditure compared to local authorities in England and Wales. If local authorities in Scotland were to reduce their spending to levels closer to those elsewhere in Britain, there would be scope for large reductions in the community charge.
As hon. Members will know, I announced last Thursday a number of changes to the community charge. Those included major revisions to the transitional relief

scheme, the prescription of a boundary for the rating of bed-and-breakfast establishments and additional classes with restricted maximum multipliers for the standard community charge. The changes to the transitional relief scheme, which will take effect in Scotland from 1 April 1990, will increase significantly the value of relief received by individuals and the numbers entitled to receive relief. Our decision to set a boundary for the rating of bed-and-breakfast establishments has been widely welcomed, while the additional standard charge classes have been identified as a result of experience gained in operating the new powers, which took effect at the beginning of this year.
Those changes and the settlement that I have announced today represent good news for community charge payers in Scotland.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that the adjustment to the transitional relief scheme to which he has just referred and which was announced earlier in the week is no substitute for the fundamental reform that the injustices of the poll tax demand? Can he confirm that the first year of transitional relief has been worth only £11 million to poll tax payers and not the £30 million that he promised when it was announced? Why is the scheme still to be fraudulently based on notional poll tax figures dreamt up by the Scottish Office rather than on what people actually pay? Will he confirm that barely one in six will qualify for help under the new scheme, even with the so-called improvements? Can he give an undertaking that this small cosmetic change will not be funded from money already allocated but not used in earlier years of the transitional relief scheme and that the Treasury will be providing additional help? Will he say what the transitional relief changes will be worth to the poll tax payer in a full year and will he give the cost of the total package that he has announced, on which there has been a remarkable silence so far?
On the aggregate external finance figure, the Secretary of State sounded remarkably smug. Does he accept that there are some question marks about the figures? Is it not the case that the Government's contribution to the cost of rebates has been cut by 2 per cent. and that the resultant shortfall of £14 million has, for the first time, been included in the aggregate external finance figure? If he takes the aggregate external finance total with the safety net contribution included, for the current and coming year, is not the picture rather different? The Government's contribution to the safety net is being halved from £30 million to £15 million. When that is taken into account, the increase in grant falls to a true figure of £395 million or 10 per cent. The Secretary of State might remember that the comparable figure announced by the Secretary of State in England a few days ago was 12·8 per cent.
The Secretary of State proclaims that this statement is good news for the poll tax payer. Does he accept that, on a standstill budget with no expansion of service, the average payment is likely to rise by about £30 a year? This package will not do.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the most bitter disappointment will be felt not in local government circles but in the community at large, where no one will see this minor tinkering with transitional relief as an answer to the desperate need for radical changes in the poll tax system? It will be condemned as inadequate to the point of insult.


Does the Secretary of State realise that, to restore his damaged reputation, he must tackle the unjust principles of the poll tax? He cannot get away with doling out a little conscience money in the vain hope of buying peace.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's protestations about the community charge would sound more convincing if he was not wallowing in a sea of controversy as a result of his ill-judged proposals for a roof tax in Scotland. Scotland is still waiting to hear what the hon. Gentleman proposes to do with his misguided, ill-judged and ill-thought-out proposals.
Today, the hon. Gentleman started by asking about transitional relief. It is indeed the case that the cost of transitional relief in the first year is likely to be less than originally anticipated. The precise amount is not yet known because there are a still several applications to come forward. There is likely to be less cost because it has become clear that the cost of the transition to community charge from rates has imposed less of a burden in Scotland than south of the border, about which the hon. Gentleman should be pleased, not sad. The criteria are exactly the same throughout Britain—fewer people meet those criteria in Scotland precisely because the change to the new system has produced less individual hardship.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why it was a notional community charge payment that was taken into account. The reason is simple—the purpose of the taxpayer paying transitional relief is to help those whose bills have gone up purely because of the change from a rating system to a community charge system. It is not intended to compensate for decisions taken by individual local authorities to increase their real spending and impose additional burdens on their charge payers, which is a matter for them to answer for to their charge payers.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the percentage increase that he said that today's aggregate external finance statement represents, and suggested that it was 10 per cent. He is wrong—the figure is actually 10·4 per cent. The hon. Gentleman said that the figure was nevertheless less than the percentage increase announced to the House last week by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which was 12·8 per cent. Of course it is less—does the hon. Gentleman realise that, because of the huge level of Scottish local authority spending compared with that in England, to achieve an equal percentage to that announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, I should have to provide for Scottish local authorities no less than £70 million more than COSLA even requested? I would have to give Scotland £165 million more than its normal formula share of United Kingdom expenditure—a formula that is already generous to Scottish requirements.
The hon. Gentleman and Scottish local authorities cannot avoid the fact that their expenditure is no less than 32 per cent. higher for every adult in Scotland than comparable expenditure in England and 29 per cent. higher than comparable expenditure in Wales. As long as they insist on such excessively high expenditure, comparisons in terms of percentages are, frankly, meaningless. The settlement that I announced today represents not only the full formula consequentials of the announcement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but £70 million more than the formula would have provided for. I take no great comfort in that, because, if I were not providing that £70 million to help

support local authority current expenditure, those resources could be made available for health, and capital expenditure on housing, education or elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should take that into account.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Am I correct in thinking that the sum announced by my right hon. and learned Friend is close to the sum bid for by local authorities in Scotland? If that is so, does it not put particular responsibility on local authorities in Scotland to act properly and fairly towards the community charge and rate payers in their districts in the coming year?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities asked for a settlement of £433 million, and the figure that I announced today is £410 million, which is so close to the figure that it was seeking that it can hardly make a great song and dance about the settlement that I announced.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the changes to the poll tax, particularly those relating to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which will be helpful in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that all those changes to the poll tax have increased administrators' problems and shown that the system is in a terrible mess? The changes have also increased problems for the elderly, particularly those who applied for transitional relief and found that they were ineligible, and others who did not apply. Is the Secretary of State aware that the elderly are suffering stress and distress as a result of the number of forms with which they have to cope, because the administrators cannot cope with all the changes?
In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the high expenditure of local authorities in Scotland compared with those in England and Wales. Is it not time that he started to compare like with like, in population terms, and gave us a breakdown of the subsidies and public expenditure that go to regions of England, particularly the south-east, where there is such benefit from mortgage tax relief? Will the Secretary of State do some work during the summer, return for the new Session and tell us exactly what Scotland contributes to the Exchequer from its industries and the amount spent by the Departments, not the Scottish Office, on Scotland, compared with England? If he did that work, we might prevent much of the argument.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the changes in relation to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which will be important, particularly for the tourist industry in the rural regions of Scotland.
The hon. Lady is correct to say that pensioners—and indeed others—can be disturbed and upset by complicated and difficult forms, whether in this or any other sector of public administration. With regard to the community charge, I am entitled to add that single pensioners are among those who have benefited most from the change from the old rating system to the community charge. The hon. Lady should consider that.
The hon. Lady is right to say that the south-east of England may have considerable prosperity that is not enjoyed by some other districts. That is why I concentrated on a comparison between Scotland and Wales, which is a part of the United Kingdom with a similar economy and social profile. Expenditure per adult by local authorities in


Wales is £776; in Scotland it is £978—I am curious to know the explanation for that. When I asked COSLA whether it had an explanation, I was met with blank incomprehension. It admitted that it had no explanation and said that it would try to find one. I hope that it does, because I am genuinely curious to know whether there is a good basis for a higher level of local authority spending. If there is a good reason, we all wish to know it, and if there is not, there may be scope for reduced spending and reduced tax bills.

Sir Hector Monro: May I, too, thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the changes that he has made in the community charge this week, particularly with reference to the anomaly over bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the tourist industry? Does he agree that his announcement today of 10·4 per cent. is above the likely level of inflation next year and should give local authorities an opportunity at least to hold, if not reduce, the community charge?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The percentage increase is likely to be considerably above the inflation rate for the financial year in which the settlement will apply.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State accept that the poll tax is, of itself, a local authority cost that need not exist if we had a proper system for funding local government, which he has refused to introduce? Instead of making fundamental changes to the poll tax, he continues to tinker with the system, with the attendant costs to local authorities in the administration of the tax. Could not he be more flexible in his approach, give local authorities the power to reintroduce the rating system if they consider that appropriate for their district and get rid of a poll tax that is thoroughly unpopular?

Mr. Rifkind: I am increasingly interested by various comments by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) has just called for the reintroduction of the rating system. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is still thirled to a roof tax—

Mr. Dewar: What is the difference?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no difference, which is an interesting statement. If it is the Labour party's view that there is no difference between roof tax and rates, perhaps there is more agreement between both sides of the House than I realise.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this fair and generous settlement. Can he give the House a broad idea of the probable implications for community charge payers in Renfrew and Eastwood district councils? Looking ahead, will he agree to study with care over the recess the strong representations that he has received from the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and myself against the absurd proposal to transfer large parts of Hillington industrial estate from Renfrew to Glasgow district, which would result in an unfair burden on community charge payers in Renfrew?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's latter point, which is presumably in the first instance a matter for the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
Although at the end of the day it will be the local authority that determines the level of the local community charge on the basis of its proposed expenditure, in the light of the settlement announced today there is every prospect that authorities—particularly good authorities such as Eastwood district council—will be able to reduce their community charge in real terms.

Mr. John McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that his previous so-called concessions on transitional relief amounted to nothing less than a fraud perpetrated on Scottish poll tax payers? When he announced that the upper savings limit for rebate purposes had been increased to £18,000, there were 500 inquiries in Dundee alone, yet only 17 of the cases qualified for rebate.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to make a genuine concession by announcing the restoration of 100 per cent. rebates for those on income support and rebates for those who are entitled to rebates but who have not received them for whatever reason?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman appears to leave out of the equation the fact that those who pay the minimum 20 per cent. community charge and who paid the minimum 20 per cent. rates in the last year of the rating system received—if they were on income support—an increase in income support equivalent to the average community charge. As the community charge in Scotland is below that in England, the hon. Gentleman cannot call for a 100 per cent. rebate unless he simultaneously accepts that that would lead to a reduction in income support—and I cannot believe that he would want that.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this generous settlement, which is almost exactly what local authorities requested, is certainly not in keeping with all the girning and greetin' from hon. Members?
How can the constituents of Tayside, North protect themselves from councillors who refuse to pay the community charge but who also collect their expenses and set the charge levels for their expenditure? What do my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government propose to do if councillors continue to follow that unsatisfactory and unsavoury practice?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is certainly right that Labour or nationalist councillors who collect their allowances but who refuse to pay their taxes put themselves in a position that is neither ethical nor moral. It would be a matter either for the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland or for the local authority itself to ensure that councillors do not put themselves above the law in terms of their community charge obligations, which are the same as those of the rest of the public, who I believe hold such people in contempt.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned ill-judged schemes of raising local government revenue, does he not realise that he is the number one expert when it comes to ill-judged schemes in Scotland, to the extent that the poll tax is one of the most hated taxes ever inflicted on the Scottish people? The fact that the Conservative party's rating in


Scotland is now equivalent to the vote received by the communists in the elections in East Germany is a political indictment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
As the settlement is based on the assumption that inflation will remain in the region of 9 per cent.—it is actually higher than that now—does the Secretary of State realise that, even in his own area, there is talk about free travel for the elderly, home helps and education services being cut? Does he realise that this announcement is accompanied by appeals to local authorities to cut services for the people?

Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman shares my pleasure at the Conservative victory in the East German elections; I have no doubt that that will give East German Conservatives great pleasure, too.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that, even in the Scottish context, Lothian community charge payers, of whom I am one, have the dubious privilege of paying the highest community charge in Scotland. The suggestion that Lothian cannot modify its expenditure to a level that seems sufficient for many other local authorities, including Labour-controlled local authorities in other parts of Scotland and Britain, does not carry credibility.

Mr. Alex Salmond: If the Secretary of State is to continue with the con trick of basing transitional relief on notional poll tax payments, why are they not also based on notional rate levels? Why has he announced further changes, modest though they are, to the poll tax today instead of a year ago, after three months' experience of it? If three months' experience of the poll tax was enough for a review in England, why was not three months enough for a review in Scotland? Is it not true that every change in the poll tax has been dictated by circumstances south of the border? What level of resistance and antagonism in Scotland will be necessary to convince the Secretary of State that this unjust tax will never be accepted by the Scottish people?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is, not uncharacteristically, wrong. About half the changes that the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last week about the standard charge we announced last year and they have been in force in Scotland for some time. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts before he makes such allegations.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as a Lothian poll tax payer, he is £40 a week better off as a result of the legislation that he himself introduced, whereas many of the constituents whom he represents are a great deal of money out of pocket as a result of that legislation? When will he stop being more anti-Scottish than the Prime Minister? Today he has given a good impression of being the most anti-Scottish Secretary of State that Scotland has ever had.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's original remark could not have been more wrong. If he consults the old valuation rolls he will discover that he owes me a substantial apology. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] These are public matters that can easily be scrutinised in the valuation rolls.
The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is nothing anti-Scottish in pointing out that Scottish local authorities levy taxes which must be paid by people in Scotland and which result in local authority expenditure being

dramatically higher than that in any other part of Britain. Why the hon. Gentleman should believe that drawing that to the attention of the Scottish public is against Scotland's interests I fail to understand. If the local authorities have a convincing explanation for it, they will no doubt provide it; so far, they have failed to do so.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear the Secretary of State telling us how much he saved from the poll tax. Will he please repeat it?

Mr. Speaker: I heard clearly enough.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Why is it that, when the Secretary of State believes that he has given a generous settlement, he preens himself at the Dispatch Box, whereas today he has come here blustering and foaming at the mouth? Does not that disguise the fact that the settlement that he has announced—[Interruption.] I could do without heckling from my own side. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman trying to disguise the fact that the settlement that he has announced is below that considered necessary merely to keep pace with a standstill budget? As he has always said that the main purpose of the poll tax is to bring about accountability in local government, will he take into account the fact that we recently had regional council elections; and will he pledge that the verdict of the Scottish people will not be set aside by capping authorities which believe that they have to deliver services?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would realise that the settlement is more than even the current rate of inflation, never mind next year's likely rate. I have powers granted by Parliament to take selective action on capping. I did not use them in the current year because I did not think that it would be appropriate to do so, given the decisions of some local authorities. I should certainly use them if I thought that that was justified. We shall have to await the expenditure decisions of Scottish local authorities to see whether the criteria laid down in the Act would persuade me to use those powers. I do not rule that out. I have not used the powers since the introduction of the community charge, and would use them only if I felt it right and proper in the circumstances.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the legitimate interests of hon. Members waiting to take part in the debate on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, on which there are 45 amendment groupings as well as Third Reading. If hon. Members ask brief questions, I may be able to get them all in.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the Secretary of State aware that many thousands of those who are in arrears with the community charge are in that position because of the administration of the rebate system? Will he confirm what was said early this morning by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) in Committee on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill—that local authorities have been administering the rebate system unfairly, and perhaps unlawfully, by imposing a three-month limit on the backdating of rebate? Will he also confirm what the Under-Secretary of State told that Committee, that those who are in trouble with


community charge arrears because of administration difficulties, which are outside their control, can get rebate not only back to the beginning of this year but back to April 1989?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did not say what has been attributed to him by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend said that the legislation has always permitted those who can show good cause for not having applied for a rebate within the prescribed time to be entitled to a rebate if they can satisfy the criteria to which I have referred.

Sir David Steel: May I caution the Secretary of State against the extravagant use of the phrase "excessive public expenditure by local authorities"? I have looked carefully at the expenditure by district and regional authorities in my area and found that the biggest single increase in the past two years has been in the cost of collecting the poll tax. That is his fault, not theirs. I invite him to come to the Borders and look at the unmet needs for housing, nursery education and other items and to tell those councils where their spending is excessive.

Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair, he will acknowledge that local authorities were fully reimbursed for the additional cost of collecting the community charge.

Sir David Steel: indicated assent.

Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. We are now talking about other areas of expenditure. I have no doubt that any local authority could find new ways to spend taxpayers' money, because that would not require too much imagination. We are entitled to know from local authorities whether they have good reasons for much higher public expenditure than that of comparable authorities in other parts of the kingdom.

Mr. Mike Watson: The Secretary of State should withdraw the profoundly insulting remark that Scotland, the country that he is supposed to represent, is over-provided for in terms of local authority finance and services. I invite him to come with me during the recess to parts of my constituency, such as Royston and the Gorbals, where schools and houses are crumbling and potholes in roads left unfilled because the local authority does not have adequate finance to do the things that people who come to my surgeries ask to be done.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman continually asks why local authority spending in Scotland is higher than in England and Wales. Why does he not take up the offer made to him by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which remains on the table, to fund a proper inquiry to look into the reasons, not least of which is geography? That would give him the answers and he might be prepared to fight Scotland's corner for the level of services we need and not give us a reduced figure that is below the 12·8 per cent. that the Secretary of State for the Environment announced for England last week.

Mr. Rifkind: I am perfectly prepared to have the matter examined. It is significant that the local authorities that are responsible for this expenditure cannot provide any explanation and say that they need to study the matter

before they can come up with a preliminary response to the question. Geography might be relevant if we were talking simply about Highland region, but why Glasgow, Dundee, Hamilton or Motherwell should require so much additional expenditure compared with similar industrial towns in Wales or England is a legitimate matter for public debate, given that it is the same United Kingdom taxpayer and Parliament who are funding that expenditure.

Mr. David Lambie: Recently the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) met representatives of the Scottish Federation of Small Businesses, who complained that many members of the federation were suffering because of increasing rates and facing bankruptcy. They compared business rates in Scotland with those paid by comparable businesses in England and Wales. When the representatives emerged from the meeting they confidently said that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary had given them a sympathetic hearing. What help is available in the settlement for small businesses in Scotland that was not available in last year's settlement?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are committed to eliminating the discriminatory high level of business rates in Scotland, which is damaging to employment and the economy. We have already reduced the gap by about £80 million, and later this year I shall make an announcement about next year's proposals. Protests about that from the Labour party are crocodile tears, because the Labour party is committed, not to completing that process, but to reversing it. It has made it quite explicit that, when it has the power to do so, it will return to local authorities total freedom to determine the level of business rates. As such local discretion has led to Scottish business, industry and commerce paying higher business rates then those in other parts of the kingdom, it would be disastrous to the prospects for employment and inward investment in Scotland if the Labour party were to carry out the policy to which it is publicly committed.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Of all the things on which to choose to spend more public money, why on earth did the Government insist on imposing this absurdly inefficient and unfair new tax system on Scotland? The Secretary of State spoke about inflation. As a fellow Lothian Member of Parliament, will he tell me what he proposes to do about the discrepancy between 52 per cent. accumulated inflation since 1983 and less than 15 per cent. extra Government funding for Lothian regional council over the same period?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise the community charge, it would at least be helpful if he told us to which wing of the Labour party he belongs and whether he wants to see a roof tax or rates, or whether he is part of the tendency that believes that the two are identical. That would be a helpful clarification of his aspirations. Like other local authorities, Lothian has been provided with increased resources to take account of inflation over the years. The fact that local authorities, and Lothian in particular, seem to feel committed to such high levels of spending is, in the first instance, a matter between them and their electorate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Leaving out the yah-boo for a moment, may I ask, if Lothian regional council quietly and politely asked to come to see the Secretary of State, would he be prepared and able at least to steer it in those directions where he thinks that there are so-called areas of excess spending?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's question in a moment, but first I shall deal with the distribution of resources between Lothian regional council and other local authorities. We discuss that matter with the convention as a whole. Clearly, the debate within Lothian about the level of its resources has identified various options put forward by the different political parties. It is not my business to suggest to a local authority a specific item of policy, but if it seeks taxpayers' money to help finance its spending, it is my business to point to the fact that the level of spending in Lothian is greater than that in other parts of Scotland as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ron Brown: As a lawyer, the governor-general will know that the poll tax, the so-called community charge, has doubtful legal status in Scotland. Why should anyone, irrespective of party, accept his edict, his Tory law? Plainly, many people do not and I support them. The mass non-payment campaign makes sense, and has forced his Government and his leader, the Prime Minister, to rethink the poll tax. They have not thought about it enough. The people should reject it and put it on the scrap heap of history, along with the Government. If there is any message, it is this. People power is important in Europe, important in Britain and most of all important in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The legal status of the poll tax is being determined by the Scottish courts rather than by the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that, irrespective of the judgment of the Scottish courts, he intends to put his view of the matter before the law of the land and before a decision of Parliament. That approach is indicative of the hon. Gentleman's attitude.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this enormous grant. I suggest that it is a light so grand that he should find a big bushel before the Courts and Legal Services Bill is debated on Report, and the English appreciate his generosity. Given that the Welsh have said that their community charge could be reduced to £9 or £10 if they had the generosity that has been meted out to us—they are a similar nation—should not my right hon. and learned Friend say that, until COSLA can justify anything else, he will reduce our poll tax to £10?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My hon. and learned Friend has identified a strong argument in favour of COSLA recognising the need to identify the reasons for high expenditure in Scotland, and, if it is unable to justify that different level of expenditure, encouraging local authorities not only to reduce their spending but to pass on the benefits to their community charge payers, whom I am sure would be delighted to see such an initiative.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Last week, the Secretary of State for Health postponed implementation of the community care proposals on the grounds that local authorities were not ready, and that there was confusion over the poll tax in England and Wales. In Scotland, local authorities claim that they are ready and have put a great deal of effort into the work, and the Secretary of State claims that the poll tax is working well in Scotland. If the poll tax can come first to Scotland, why cannot community care come first to Scotland? By how much would the poll tax have had to go up in Scotland so as to implement community care? What calculations has he made?
The Secretary of State claims that the Scottish people were receiving an excessively high level of services—not that there were excessively high levels of expenditure. In education, Scotland is better served than England and Wales—the pupil-teacher ratio is better and there are better staying-on rates. Over 50 per cent. of local authority spending is on education. Would the Secretary of State like a cut in that sector?

Mr. Rifkind: We have said that we wish to see a phased introduction of community care. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed from today's reports in the Scottish newspapers that that decision has been welcomed by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, which feels that delay in implementing the Government's community care programme provides much-needed time to co-ordinate mental health services. [Interruption.]. On this matter, not unreasonably, I prefer the views of the commission to those of the Scotsman editorial.
Education expenditure is one of the issues that Scottish local authorities will wish to consider. They will also wish to consider whether higher expenditure on education compared with other parts of the kingdom gives a proportionate benefit to the youngsters who attended Scottish schools. We need to identify whether Scottish education is so demonstrably superior to that in England and Wales as to justify the higher expenditure. That is a legitimate matter of public debate, which the local authorities and no doubt others will wish to address.

Power Stations (Closure)

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, Under Standing Order, No 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision taken today by PowerGen to close two of its power stations.'
One of those power stations, Elland, is in Calderdale, which is near Halifax. This makes the proposed closure a problem for my constituents, many of whom work at the plant. The closures are likely to trigger a round of cost cutting as PowerGen and its rival National Power seek to maximise profits. This is the first sign of what will happen to the industry if Hanson takes over.
PowerGen has given the age of the power stations and the excuse of non-commercial viability as reasons for closure. It does not appear to have considered other factors, such as the importance of the position of Elland, which is within 20 miles of the Yorkshire coalfield, and the effect on the local community of job losses.
The unions do not accept the reasons given for the closures, and neither do I. In the past few months, Calderdale has lost more than 1,000 jobs in manufacturing, and a further 130 jobs will go if Elland closes. Under the Central Electricity Generating Board, all power stations had excellent and expensive regular overhauls. There was a good level of investment and superb background of training. The CEGB was scrupulous in providing safe and efficient power.
The Labour party is committed to clean, safe power and is looking at the clean coal burn technology, which could be fitted to power stations such as Elland. Experts inform me that, if proper maintenance is carried out, there is little difference between old and new plants. While power stations under the CEGB were valid, efficient, safe public assets, we are witnessing now the wicked, unacceptable face of privatisation, the worshipping of profit and the scattering of our precious assets to land speculators. The callous disregard for communities and skilled jobs, and the destructive wrecking of a superb public industry are issues that the House should debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision taken today by PowerGen to close two of its power stations.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Lady said about this matter, which affects her constituency. As she knows, the decision that I have to take is whether to give it precedence over the business set down for consideration today. I have to say that the matter that she has raised does not meet the criteria of the standing order. Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you and the Secretary of State for Education and Science brief notice. It concerns the rights of Parliament in respect of its duties to protect the public purse and to ensure that there is no abuse in expenditure of money voted by Parliament.
You, Mr. Speaker, will be aware that a detailed code of conduct has been laid down by the Cabinet Office in relation to expenditure on Government publicity. For example, paragraph 2(c) of that code says that Government publicity
should not be, or be liable to misinterpretation as being, party political.
Paragraph 2(d) says that it should be produced
in an economic and relevant way.
Paragraph 5 says:
it is no less crucial if government publicity is to remain acceptable within the conventions, that it avoids any doubt about its purpose".
Paragraph 6 states:
Image building, whether explicit or implied, whether by Government as a whole or by Ministers, is not acceptable.
Paragraph 10 says:
in each case, those responsible must be able
for the purposes of the expenditure
to give a persuasive reply to the following questions…Is it necessary to have a publicity proposal which goes beyond what can be achieved in the normal way (eg Parliamentary announcement, Ministerial speech, regular publication)?
Annex A says:
distribution of unsolicited material should be carefully controlled.
It has come to my notice that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has had printed and distributed 76,500 copies of a little pink book which, according to the front, contains
A summary of messages from recent speeches by the Rt. Hon. John MacGregor, OBE, MP, the Secretary of State for Education.
The cost, which will have run into thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, plainly breaches the code.
Moreover, it comes oddly from a Secretary of State who in February made a speech saying that he was taking measures to cut the burden of paperwork caused by the Education Reform Act 1988, and proclaimed that he had reduced the paperwork by 150,000 sheets, to allow 1,680,000 sheets of paper, paid for by the taxpayer, to be used in the production of such a booklet.
Given what I have read out from the code—that image building is not acceptable and that publicity, where there is any doubt about its purpose, is not acceptable—and given that the Secretary of State has already made those speeches and received a perfectly fair press in respect of them, there can be no doubt that the expenditure of thousands of pounds of public money clearly breaches the code. In addition, it smacks of the kind of the practice of some of the regimes to the east of Britain which have just collapsed.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that your powers are limited, but Parliament has a duty to control such abuses of expenditure. As you are the guardian of Parliament's rights and duties, I put it to you that, before the House rises, the Secretary of State—not the Under-Secretary of State—must have an opportunity to come to the House to make a statement about how he came to waste thousands


of pounds of Government money on what is explicitly party-political propaganda when cuts in education and schools are occurring throughout the country. The Government have clearly breached the dividing line between legitimate Government information and party-political propaganda.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. As he correctly stated, it is not a matter that I can deal with on a point of order. It is a matter for the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I am sure, however, that what the hon. Gentleman has said has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench, and we may hear more about the matter tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point in saying anything further about it, because there is nothing that I can do.

Mr. Terry Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too have received complaints from governors, parents and teachers in my contituency about the booklet. I realise that this is not the time to debate the spending priorities of the Department of Education and Science which, to the consternation of my constituents, prefers to spend money on printing the Secretary of State's speeches rather than on textbooks for under-resourced schools. The Public Accounts Committee has recently recommended that accounting officers in Government Departments should not only consider the propriety of such publications, but record the results of their considerations. Is there any way in which we can discover the views of the accounting officer at the Department of Education and Science without waiting for the files to be opened in 30 years' time?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for me. It is not a question that I can answer.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Madden: It is on the point that this blatant party political propaganda was unsolicited by the schools which have been deluged with booklets. I have received many complaints about schools having to charge playgroups for the use of facilities this summer because of the new budget arrangements forced upon them by the Government. They will be shocked and dismayed to receive thousands of copies of this party-political propaganda, for which they have not asked, at a time when playgroups and many other users of school buildings have been placed in great difficulty. As we are approaching the recess, is there any way in which, you, Mr. Speaker, can pass on the concern of hon. Members about the matter to the Public Accounts Committee so that at least some investigations can be made during the summer?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should do that himself.

Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a point of order."] That is for you to decide, Mr. Speaker, not for Conservative Members.
It is increasingly the case that the Government twist and cheat the taxpayer in the interests of their own party-political propaganda. This is only the latest in a series of such disclosures. It is a matter on which the House should have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Who has authorised this expenditure and how can it possibly be justified, especially at a time when many children in schools throughout Britain arc short of basic educational materials? I place the matter on the record because I hope that we can have your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in obtaining later today or tomorrow a statement from the Secretary of State so that the House can ask him those important questions.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to grant a statement. The Chair does not have that authority. As the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Gentleman's best course would be to have a word with the Leader of the House himself to see whether a statement could be made.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to complain that I have not had a copy of what is clearly a valuable document? I hope that the Secretary of State will send me one.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be pleased to know that it is a different point of order, for the simple reason that the Minister responsible for education in Scotland would be dead scared to send us a copy of his speeches.
You, Mr. Speaker, heard the exchange between the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself during his statement, in which he said that I owed him an apology. You, Mr. Speaker, know better than most that I am always pleased to apologise, especially when I am wrong. I wish to put it on record that if the Secretary of State had not withheld the information that I sought I would willingly have apologised, but he chose to withhold the information.

Mr. David Winnick: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to pursue the point about booklets which come more or less direct from Tory central office being published at public expense.
I assume, Mr. Speaker, that you have not received a request from a Minister to deal with the tense situation in the middle east and the military threat by the Iraqi regime against Kuwait, because had you done so there would have been a statement. As it is important that hon. Members on both sides of the House should express their points of view about this dangerous situation which arises directly from the criminal regime which rules in Iraq, has serious consideration been given to recalling the House at the first instant should the situation become more tense and the British Government decide to take action of any kind?

Mr. Speaker: I do not initiate a recall of the House during the recess, but no doubt what the hon. Gentleman has said will be taken into account if anything serious were to occur. In that event, I am sure that what he has suggested would happen.

BILL PRESENTED

PERSONAL RECORDS (EMPLOYMENT)

Miss Emma Nicholson, supported by Mr. William Cash, Mr. Richard Holt, Mr. Steve Norris, Sir Geoffrey


Pattie, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Bowen Wells, Sir Jim Spicer, Mrs. Ray Michie and Mr. Greville Janner, presented a Bill to impose duties upon employers and other holders of factual information about employees or applicants for employment in respect of such information; to provide for the correction or deletion of incorrect information; to extend the powers and duties of the Director General of Fair Trading; to define offences and prescribe penalties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

Breath Tests on Licensed Premises

Sir Ian Lloyd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require every holder of a justices' on-licence to install on the licensed premises concerned a device enabling persons who have consumed intoxicating liquor to take a breath test before leaving the premises; and for connected purposes.
No one will be more aware than you, Mr. Speaker, that much of the most basic controversy in the House is not about objective, but about method. Objectives are easily stated; implementation and method are altogether another matter, involving not only resources but generally that most difficult civil procedure, an adjustment of rights and obligations. The Bill is no exception. Its objective is quite clear and I wish to make it unequivocal. It is to reduce the incidence of dangerous driving associated with alcohol.
Both the motor vehicle and alcohol, taken separately, may be described as good servants and bad masters. Taken together, the combination can be lethal. We know that the current cost to society is some £400 million per annum and an unmeasurable quantity of tragedy, pain and grief. The current Government philosophy assumes that a total separation of the vehicle and its driver from alcohol is both desirable and possible. It is expressed in the exhortation, "Don't drink and drive", and that has been confirmed most recently in a letter to me from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. All concerned now accept that there is a gulf between the law and the advice given, and some advocate a stiffening of the law which, taken to its logical limit, would require a zero limit and random breath testing. My Bill is based on an analysis which seeks to demonstrate that the current philosophy is fundamentally flawed.
First, a zero limit implies that the motor vehicle can be used as an instrument for enforcing prohibition on the roads. No state has ever achieved that, and none ever will. It is an aspect of moral fundamentalism, and fundamentalism flies in the face of human nature. Secondly, it is based on an assumption that random breath testing, on a large enough scale and enforced with Cromwellian rigour, will eventually achieve the objective. That, too, flies in the face of experience. It is an emotional response to the problem, and that is something that we cannot afford.
Emotions are malleable; facts are very stubborn—and the House will probably not welcome the facts that I shall now place before it. They are drawn largely from two official reports from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, published within the past two years, on drinking and driving. They disclosed that, of some 2,500 people stopped and tested on a random basis in Warwickshire and Sussex recently, 52 per cent. had consumed alcohol within the last 12 hours; 17 per cent. had alcohol in their bloodstream; and that, of those, 3·6 per cent. were just under the limit and 1·3 per cent. over the limit. Some 33 per cent. of those sampled had visited a pub, club, hotel or restaurant.
What does that suggest? First, it suggests that the elimination of the 1·3 per cent. is an essential and legitimate target; secondly, that the reduction of the 3·6 per cent. is both desirable and practical; thirdly, that exhortation—however brilliant or intense—will not have much effect on the remaining 69 per cent. There is not


much point in endeavouring to push water uphill or alcohol back into the stills and vats of the distillers and brewers.
I come now to the crucial figure of 33 per cent. who had visited clubs, pubs, hotels and restaurants. There are about 135,000 licensed premises in the United Kingdom. Assuming that each receives a modest 50 visits per day by car, we have a target figure of more than 2,000 million visits per annum. If we apply the research laboratory's figures to that total, we must conclude that 344 million journeys will be made by drivers with alcohol in their bloodstreams, and that 2·6 million—1·3 per cent.—will be made by drivers unfit to drive.
That last figure is the real target of the Bill, bearing in mind two other research laboratory figures—that 40 to 50 per cent. of those tested drove themselves home and that a significant number of those tested who thought that they had consumed fewer than three units had, in fact, consumed more. Fifteen were over the limit. That ignorance cannot be right or justified, and it is not in the public interest.
What can be done? I have already eliminated draconian enforcement, which leaves only one obvious alternative—to assist members of the public to discover for themselves whether they are in categories 1, 2, 3 or 4. That requires the Government, first, to abandon the absurd notion that either laws or exhortation can achieve a total segregation of drinking and driving; secondly, to encourage drivers to test their alcohol levels as a matter of routine; and thirdly, to provide them with the means to do so.
My Bill would make the provision of such a facility an obligation on every licence-holder. I could not bring a machine into the Chamber, but I have a photograph with me which some hon. Members have already seen. The machine is accurate, reliable and easy to use. It has been successfully applied in Australia, California, Germany, Sweden and many other countries. It is estimated that 17,000 tests a day are carried out voluntarily by members of the public in Australia alone. The Royal Australian Navy has rated such machines an outstanding success, and some states are considering compulsory installation. It would cost £137 million, at a cost of £1,000 per machine, to install one in every pub in the United Kingdom—but what is that against a saving of thousands of lives and a medical bill of several hundred million pounds?
One outstanding criticism is that such devices would encourage drivers to drink up to the limit. There is no evidence to support that view. A pilot study in Australia revealed that there was

no evidence of changes in respondents' behaviour as a result of obtaining BAC levels.
The inventor of the fuel cell—I have two examples with me, of the sort used by the police and of those that can be applied to the ignition lock of a car—concluded that
their installation does not, contrary to some opinion, lead to brinkmanship but to responsible and knowledgeable drinking by an educated public.
That is our target.
Drivers should never be driving when out of the yellow zone depicted in the diagram I am holding. It is the zone of virtually nil risk. The whole of the red zone is a legitimate target and it should enjoy all our attention. If we endeavour to eliminate the yellow zone, we shall be squandering massive resources to no avail. There are about 7,000 breathalysers in the United Kingdom, almost all in the hands of the police. My purpose is to put 135,000 in the hands of the public, and thereby both reduce dangerous and drunken driving and release the police for much more important tasks.
I shall conclude with an analogy. Aircraft flying into Heathrow have their height and operations controlled by two devices—the radar at Heathrow and the altimeters in the aircraft. To suggest that the pilot should come in without altimeters and that the only people to know the aircraft's height should be the controllers at Heathrow, is obviously ridiculous. To suggest that vast numbers of the public who are likely to be driving with alcohol in their bloodstreams should have no method of discovering that fact until they are stopped by the police has always struck me as ridiculous. To put that right is the purpose of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Ian Lloyd, Sir Hal Miller, Mr. Stanley Orme, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr Ted Garrett, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mr. Michael Colvin.

BREATH TESTS ON PREMISES

Sir Ian Lloyd accordingly presented a Bill to require every holder of a justices' on-licence to install on the licensed premises concerned a device enabling persons who have consumed intoxicating liquor to take a breath test before leaving the premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

WAYS AND MEANS

Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]

Mr. Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you may know, I served on the Committee considering the Bill. You may know also that, in the past few weeks, the Government have tabled 30 new clauses and amendments to it. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that some of them are acceptable and welcome. However, it is usually the Government's practice—as it was in Committee—to produce guidance notes for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who have not had an opportunity fully to study new clauses and amendments. Such notes would be useful to members of the Committee and to all right hon. and hon. Members as we arrive at the Report stage.
I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been informed by the Attorney-General whether such notes have been prepared and, if so, whether they have been circulated to members of the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The provision of guidance notes is not a matter for the Chair, but perhaps the Solicitor-General will comment when I ask him to address the House on the Ways and Means motion.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be paid by the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board by way of repayment of grants made to the Board by the Lord Chancellor.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is right to say that there are a large number of amendments. A high proportion of them arise in response to matters which were debated both on Second Reading and in Committee, and come forward as a result of constructive suggestions made during the course of the Committee stage. I apologise to the hon. Member if we have been unable to send him guidance notes, but I hope that the purpose of the amendments will become clear, and I am sure that he will make a constructive contribution to our debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be paid by the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board by way of repayment of grants made to the Board by the Lord Chancellor.

Orders of the Day — Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 6

ALLOCATION OF FAMILY PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS

'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, give directions that, in such circumstances as may be specified—

(a) any family proceedings which are within the jurisdiction of county courts; or
(b) any specified description of such proceedings,

shall be allocated to specified judges or to specified descriptions of judge.

(2) Any such direction shall have effect regardless of any rules of court.

(3) Where any directions have been given under this section allocating any proceedings to specified judges, the validity of anything done by a judge in, or in relation to, the proceedings shall not be called into question by reason only of the fact that he was not a specified judge.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) "county court" includes the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court in so far as it is treated as a county court.

(5) In this section—
family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989;
judge" means any person who—

(a) is capable of sitting as a judge for a county court district;
(b) is a district judge, an assistant district judge or a deputy district judge; or
(c) is a district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court; and

specified" means specified in the directions.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clause 7—Family proceedings in magistrates courts and related matters.
Government new clause 20—Extension of powers of justices' clerks.
Government amendments Nos. 168, 47, 50, 53 to 58, 172, 59 to 61, 182, 62 to 64, 173, 76, 175, 79, and 82 to 85.

The Solicitor-General: This group of new clauses and amendments relates to or arises from the Children Act 1989 and the need for new arrangements for family proceedings. The changes will allow the 1989 Act to deliver its aims and objectives more fully in all family proceedings.
Clause 6 enables the Lord Chancellor to make directions about the allocation of family proceedings in county courts. They will fall into two parts. First, directions will be made allocating particular types of proceedings to a particular level of judge. That will enable the Lord Chancellor to give a comprehensive direction


covering all family business and to ensure that particularly sensitive proceedings, such as care cases, are heard by judiciary of sufficient standing.
Secondly, directions will be made allocating a particular type of proceedings to a specific individual judge. The effect will be to create a nominated group of circuit and district judges who will specialise in specific types of family work in county courts. Their selection will be a matter for the Lord Chancellor on the advice, and with the concurrence, of the president of the family division.
New clause 7 extends the rule-making provisions in section 93 of the Children Act 1989 to cover all family proceedings. That will ensure that children and other family proceedings brought in the magistrates court under the Children Act 1989 will be subject to the same rules of procedure. New clause 20 amends section 28(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 to enable rules to be made under section 144 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 to allow for the delegation of the duties and powers authorised to be done by a justices' clerk to somebody who is his deputy or assistant.
Amendment No. 59 concerns section 97 of the Children Act 1989, which provides for rules to enable a magistrates court to sit in private in certain proceedings under that legislation, and restricts the publication of material that might identify the child in question. Those measures supplement other statutory provisions concerning privacy, and amendment No. 59 clarifies that point. Amendment No. 53 makes it clear that when a young person is brought before a court for variation or discharge of a supervision order, the court will have the power, should it be necessary, to remand him to local authority accommodation if he is under the age of 18 or, in the sad cases where this is necessary, to a remand centre or prison if he has attained the age of 18.
Amendment No. 54 concerns regulations about staying access—that is, access to a member of the family with whom the child or young person is staying, which needs to be properly planned. Amendment No. 54 provides for that. Amendment No. 60 removes the 90-day time limit for complying with directions made under a supervision order, and amendment No. 61 will ensure that no child in care will remain a ward of court. Amendment No. 168 will ensure that the power to make rules of court contained in section 93 will be available also to the relevant rule-making authorities in Northern Ireland. The remaining amendments make the necessary consequential amendments, repeals and minor technical changes, and correct certain inconsistencies.
I commend the amendments, which will enable changes to be made to the Children Act 1989 necessary to allow that very valuable legislation to deliver its aims in a full and proper way.

Mr. John Morris: I welcome the Solicitor-General's explanation, but we are dealing with a host of new clauses and amendments which would have been better introduced in Committee, when there would have been an opportunity for organisations and individuals to consider and comment on a major initiative. That would have been the right course, rather than introducing these amendments on Report.
Having said that, I welcome the proposed changes, and hope that we may eventually see the emergence of a complete family court, bringing together all the jurisdictions. The Bill is an important step in that direction. I should like to know how many different tiers of courts will still be dealing with children's work and what changes are envisaged in substantive law. Judging from the new clauses and amendments, I suspect that no changes are anticipated.
It is some years since I ventured into a juvenile court or into the family division, but I know from magistrates close to me that they look forward to the new challenges in family work. Shall we still have wardship dealt with in the High Court, custody in the equivalent of the divorce courts, care in the magistrates courts, and so on? Will the old divisions remain, or will a change emanate from the proposals that we have had only a short time to study?
I welcome the proposals for specified judges and for "specified descriptions" of judges—whatever that expression may mean. I accept the need for specialisation. I am told that nothing is more impressive than the solicitors panel which appears in care cases before London juvenile courts. The expertise and the care that it exhibits is, I am told, impressive. It follows that the Lord Chancellor is right to propose a degree of specialisation, and the considerable training and familiarity gained from dealing with like cases on a regular basis will be of assistance.
How are the new procedures to be monitored once they have been implemented? We all recognise and regard as important the independence of the judiciary, but we know also that some are better than others. Where people no longer wish to be specified or are quite frankly, not up to the task of being specified, it is important that they should be able without difficulty to be transferred to other tasks. There is plenty of demand in the realm of general Crown court work, so none of them would be unemployed.
It is important not to specify or allocate responsibilities to someone who, over a period of time, finds that he is perhaps not attuned to the needs and changes. I hope that we can have an assurance that the president of the family division will keep a most watchful eye on those who have been chosen to ensure that standards are not only maintained, but improved.
In a half sentence before he finished his opening remarks, the Solicitor-General referred to the reliance on local authorities with regard to care and accommodation facilities. My impression is that that is rather patchy in some areas and perhaps one or two local authorities are not so co-operative as they might be.
That co-operation must exist in the provision of facilities and we must bear in mind that local authorities have very few financial resources these days. It must also exist in the provision of reports. I have heard complaints from magistrates that local authorities do not always produce the required reports and that they are not always particularly co-operative. We should be told about that because it is very important. If any persuasion is necessary, I am sure that in the face of argument, those who may not be so good as the others will do what they can to improve the necessary co-operation between the judiciary and local authorities.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I wish to raise one point about the Children Act 1989. It has been brought to my attention by the Justices' Clerks Society that there is a proposal that legal aid certificates for the


child and the parents should be granted by the Legal Aid Board. The board's delivery rate is in the region of up to 20 weeks for 100 per cent. delivery. In such cases it is absolutely essential that legal aid is granted immediately.
The justices' clerks know the facts of the matter and can very often grant legal aid overnight or during the course of the night. They can assess the needs and representation in those delicate cases in which speed is often essential and in which the aid should be granted at the first available opportunity.
To leave it to the Legal Aid Board with its cumbersome processing procedures—I do not say that unkindly—would, I believe, be a considerable mistake. I hope that the Solicitor-General will take on board that one small point, which could mean a terrific amount to the children and parents involved. Perhaps he can suggest to the Lord Chancellor that that proposal is not wise.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I echo the concern voiced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) about this procedure today. We now face complicated new clauses which have been introduced at the last minute and without adequate briefing for hon. Members. It would have been convenient and a courtesy if the Government had provided some notes on clauses to allow for a better informed debate.
Not only hon. Members are being neglected in that way. The interest groups affected by the changes, in many cases, learned of them only at the last minute. Some of those groups learned about the changes only last Friday. That is far too late to allow a proper process of consultation. This procedure is a preparation for inadequate legislation. I am not sure whether Ministers want to give the House of Lords a useful job and something to do, but having considered the Bill initially, further changes will have to be made in the House of Lords to remedy the deficiencies caused by the last-minute rush of clauses before us today.
There is such enormous legal power on the Government Front Bench that it is virtually an all-knight party. However, it is not good enough for the best legal brains to be vamping the Bill at the last minute in this fashion. The president of the National Union of Mineworkers was invited to go away and run a fish and chip shop. On the evidence of this Bill, the best legal brains could not run a fish and chip shop. Cobbling things together in this way is just not good enough. Indeed, my most devastating criticism is that I could have done it better myself. That should certainly bring them to their knees.
I welcome the Government's proposals as a first step along a road which we need to take and along which we need to progress far more quickly than the measures propose. However, the road leads towards a separate self-contained structure of family courts to deal with those matters as a specialised area. That proposal is long overdue in this country and we delayed far too long in developing such a structure. The faster the progress we can make, the better. That structure will need a specially trained and selected hierachy of judges to deal with family matters. People with sensitivity and with experience and training in that area are required and any step along that road is welcome.
I have long been an advocate of a Manpower Services Commission or Training Commission scheme for judges.

The training of judges in this country is totally inadequate in view of the weight of responsibility that falls on them. Training is to be provided in family matters. Such training is long overdue in many areas.
I understand that, in France, judges who deal with family matters are required to undergo a course of psychotherapy so as to understand their own prejudices, what motivates them and their own feelings, hang-ups, inhibitions and problems about the family—in short, so that they can know themselves. I do not know what results would be produced if some of the judges that I have seen around this country were required to undergo psychotherapy in that way, but if they at least knew themselves and the prejudices that motivated them, that would be extremely useful.

Mr. Keith Vaz: At the beginning of our proceedings, it is right that I should yet again declare my interest in the matter. When the proceedings on the Bill began, I was a solicitor. Since then, I have transferred to the Bar as a mere pupil, although I am not sure whether that has happened as a result of the standard of debate in Committee. However, I receive no income either from the solicitor's profession or from the Bar.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That must be the first example of going back to the sinking ship.

Mr. Vaz: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to sink with me.
The history of the discussions and debates about family courts and related matters is not good. On Report on the Children Act 1989, when the Solicitor-General was present and we were discussing family courts, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) entered the Chamber and announced the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unfortunately, following that, discussions on the Children Bill were curtailed. I am not sure whether that will happen again with quite the same drama today.
New clauses 6 and 7 raise important points, which were raised during the passage of the Children Act and in the Standing Committee on this Bill. The clauses proceed from a press release—not a statement—by the Lord Chancellor on 9 July this year in which he referred to the creation of family hearing centres.
I share the disappointment voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Having started on the road to family courts in the Lord Chancellor's Second Reading speech in December 1988, having been promised a family court at some stage and having been told that the Children Bill was the family court in all but name as it dealt with the judicial matters, it is disappointing that the Solicitor-General has decided not to announce the formal establishment of a family court. There is great support by hon. Members on both sides of the House for the creation of a family court, for the reasons that have been outlined by hon. Members in debates on family matters during the proceedings on the Children Bill and on Second Reading and in the Standing Committee stage of this Bill.
The case for a family court is unanswerable. How disappointing it is that the Solicitor-General, having promised in the Children Bill that he would set up a rolling programme to establish a family court, has given us something rather less than that—that is, family proceedings panels and family hearing centres. I hope that the Solicitor-General will confirm that next week he will


announce the venues for those family hearing centres. If that is the case, it would have been much more appropriate for him to make that announcement today, as it would have given us the opportunity to discuss those important matters.
I agree with what has been said about consultation. What a different approach has been taken on the Bill from that taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), now the Minister for the Arts, during the passage of the Children Bill, which was heralded as a consensus Bill, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman adjourned the Committee and allowed discussions between Opposition Members and officials of his Department when any new or different proposal was put forward, especially one of such complexity.
6.30 pm
Despite the army of civil servants present today, no attempt has been made by the Lord Chancellor's office or his Department to contact members of the Committee to discuss an issue of deep concern to those of us involved in family rights and the Family Court Campaign. There have been ample opportunities to do that. Pledges have been made about the need to carry the Committee with the Government, but none of those pledges has been realised.
On 11 July 1990, Baroness Faithfull, chairperson of the Family Court Campaign, issued a statement in which she commented quite favourably on the Lord Chancellor's press release, saying:
Now is the time to move that step forward to ensure that we have a family court.
She ended her statement with the following words:
It is vital to maintain the momentum of the Lord Chancellor's rolling programme of family court reform by a firm public commitment to the next stages in the process. It is hoped that under the new arrangements there will be reasonable access for families to the courts.
She went on to comment on the Children Act.
I hesitate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has just entered the Chamber. I do not know whether he is bringing us news of a resignation as he did on a previous occasion, or whether he intends to take part in a debate on family courts. Today, I received a letter from the Solicitor-General about a new body called the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, which I know he will deal with when we discuss amendment No. 26, which talks about the need to provide almost £1 million of Government money for the new board. If he is prepared to provide £1 million for a board dealing with licensed conveyancers, surely he can provide the necessary resources for fully fledged, all-singing, all-dancing family courts—to use the words of the Solicitor-General when we discussed the matter on Report of the Children Bill. Money cannot be the problem, so it must be the Government's commitment to enable that to happen.
In my constituency an overworked and understaffed juvenile court deals with family matters. Only one court in Leicester deals with such cases. The waiting room has to accommodate more than 140 people. No refreshments are available for the advocates, the parents or the children. People have to wait for a long time for their cases to be heard, as there is no fixed appointments system. The conditions are intolerable. On hot days such as today, people have to submit to the pressures of the weather. Their cases are dealt with in the same building that houses young people who may have been found guilty of criminal offences. It is not good enough for the Government to say

that there is no outside pressure. If they look at juvenile courts throughout the country, they will find that the service is inadequate.
I should like to know which groups the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor has consulted about the proposals. What are the Solicitor-General's plans for monitoring the proposals? Are there any precedents for what he suggests in any other areas of law? Will he give me a straight answer to a straight question? When will we reach the end of the rolling programme? When will he or the Attorney-General come to the Dispatch Box and say, "We have tried out various experiments; we have made progress and time has moved on. We have had consultations with the Department of Health and now is the time for us to have fully fledged family courts with trained lawyers and judges." When will the Government make that commitment? Instead of having a rolling programme with no timetable and no end, the Solicitor-General should make a specific pledge that at a fixed time and date family courts will be introduced into our judicial system.

The Solicitor-General: I am most grateful for the welcome of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for the legislative provisions. As he said, he did not take part in the discussions on the Children Act, but he and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will know that the major initiative which relates to the group of amendments was the Children Act 1989. The amendments use the Bill as a legislative vehicle to build upon that major initiative.
Several hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Leicester, East, asked how the provisions fit into the framework of family courts, about the monitoring of the proposals and about training. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) asked a detailed and pertinent question about the granting of legal aid certificates. I shall seek to answer those points. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that this is not the first step; we are building upon an important major first initiative, the Children Act.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East has just become a barrister, and he will be concentrating upon clarity of expression. As the Lord Chancellor has made clear, in order to have a successful family court, whether it deals with children or wider family law, it is necessary first to create and establish a proper body of law which applies to those matters. That is exactly what we have done in the Children Act, which has been widely recognised on all sides to be a major initiative. Having created a body of law, we can create the specialised courts structure to administer it. That is what we are in the process of doing, and the amendments assist us in that process.
The proposals will be put into effect in accordance with the framework which the amendments help to construct. To that extent, they are a significant first step towards the creation of the family courts. The next step must be to establish a coherent body of family law, drawing together the different aspects, and then to create the court structure—I suspect in a way similar to what we are doing for children in relation to the wider body of family law. Then the programme to which I refer will have rolled on and we shall not simply have been making pledges for the future, with which we have been all too familiar in politics in the past. We have seen a certain amount of it from the Labour


party in the recent past. We shall be dealing not with pledges for the future, whether or not they have been costed, but with the constructive creation of a real system.

Mr. Vaz: I accept that it is necessary to create a substantial body of law, but that is what we did in the Children Act 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who is present in the Chamber, served on the Committee on that Bill and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who is also present, served on it too. We repealed and consolidated much legislation about children. It is accepted that it was a landmark piece of legislation. Can I tease from the Solicitor-General when the process will end? He must have some sort of timetable in mind. Governments must work to some schedule and not just embark on a continuous rolling programme. When will the process end?

The Solicitor-General: We have created a body of law. With these new clauses we are creating the administrative structure—the court framework—to operate that body of law. That will be the first major step in the creation of a family court. The next steps will come with the development of family law.

Mr. Vaz: When?

The Solicitor-General: I will not answer the hon. Gentleman. I have told him that it is a rolling programme, and it will roll forward. He should welcome the advance and recognise how important it is.
The programme will be monitored and staffed at every level by a specially selected and trained judiciary. The monitoring will be undertaken by the Lord Chancellor and the president of the family division, who will have the benefit of a central advisory committee drawn from experts in the wide number of disciplines which come together in this aspect of children law. The committee will be judicially chaired and will assist in monitoring. There will be training at every level.
The Legal Aid Board will set up a special structure to ensure that legal aid certificates can be dealt with swiftly. Meantime, I take note of the point made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. As in many areas, we are anxious to move from one practical system which works well only when we have in place another practical system which will work well.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General accept that experience is the best teacher and that experience has taught us that in these matters time is essential? I cannot foresee a stage when the board will be able to give the 24-hour cover which is necessary. Later, I shall give another example in which it is blatantly clear that the board cannot deal with legal aid applicants appropriately.

The Solicitor-General: We have not immediately reached the stage where the board is pretending to do that. We are creating a framework in which it can do so. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, particularly if he has had an opportunity to read the board's recent annual report, that it has already made valuable progress in other areas.
We are using this part of the Bill to make major advances in an area in which we began even more fundamentally with the Children Act. I commend the new clauses to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7

FAMILY PROCEEDINGS IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS AND RELATED MATTERS

To move the following Clause:—

'.—(1) In this section "family proceedings" has the meaning given by section 65(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

(2) For the purpose of giving effect to any enactment mentioned in that section, rules made under section 144 of that Act may make, in relation to any family proceedings, any provision which—

(a) falls within subsection (2) of section 93 of the Children Act 1989 (rules of court); and
(b) may be made in relation to relevant proceedings under section 93 of the Act of 1989.

(3) In section 35 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (composition of committee of magistrates for inner London area), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) for the words "three members of the juvenile court panel" there shall be substituted "one member of the juvenile court panel"; and
(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

(bb) two members chosen, in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made for the purposes of this subsection, from any family panel or combined family panel for the inner London area".

(4) At the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
(7) No rules shall be made under subsection (3)(bb) above except on the advice of, or after consultation with, the rule committee established under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

(5) In section 37(1)(a) of that Act (justices' clerks) after the words "juvenile courts" there shall be inserted "and family proceedings courts".'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AND REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

To move the following Clause:—

' .—(1) The Board may serve a notice on any—

(a) authorised practitioner;
(b) officer or employee of an authorised practitioner;
(c) qualified person who is acting, or has acted, on behalf of an authorised practitioner; or
(d) officer or employee of such a qualified person,

requiring him to provide the Board (within such time and at such place as may be specified in the notice) with such document, or documents of such a description, or with such information, as may be so specified.

(2) The Board shall not exercise its powers under subsection (1) except for the purpose of obtaining such information as it thinks reasonably necessary in connection with the discharge of any of its functions.

(3) The Board's power under this section to require a person to produce any document includes power—

(a) if the document is produced, to take copies of it or extracts from it and to require that person, or any other person who is or was a director or officer of, or


is or was at any time employed by or acting as an employee of, the practitioner concerned, to provide an explanation of the document;
(b) if the document is not produced, to require the person who was required to produce it to state, to the best of his knowledge and belief, where it is.

(4) The Board's power under this section may be exercised in relation to a person who falls within subsection (1)(c) or (d) only in relation to the provision of conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner concerned.

(5) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.

(6) Any person who, in response to any requirement imposed on him under this section, knowingly or recklessly provides any information or explanation or makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(7) Where any person from whom production of a document is required under this section claims a lien on the document, the production of it shall be without prejudice to the lien.

(8) Nothing in this section shall compel—

(a) the production of a document containing a communication which is privileged from disclosure in legal proceedings in England and Wales; or
(b) the furnishing of information contained in such a communication.

(9) In this section "document" includes any information recorded in any form and, in relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references to its production include references to producing a copy in legible form.'.—[The solicitor-General.]

Brought up and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clauses 9 to 13 and Government amendments Nos. 44, 65, 66, 69 and 70.

The Solicitor-General: These new clauses and amendments give the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board the powers it needs to exercise proper administration and control over authorised conveyancing practitioners, to preserve assets pending investigation and to provide for an appeal system against its decision, should an aggrieved party wish to appeal.
New clause 8 allows the board to serve a notice on an authorised practitioner requiring him to provide the board with such documents or information as it thinks reasonably necessary in connection with the discharge of any of its functions. New clause 9 allows the board to appoint one of more competent persons to investigate the affairs of the authorised practitioner. New clause 10 creates a general prohibition against disclosure of information received by the board, its staff or an investigator appointed by it in the exercise of their functions under the Bill without the consent of the person from whom the information was obtained or, if they are different, the person to whom it relates. New clause 11 deals with exceptions from restriction on disclosure.
6.45 pm
Amendments Nos. 65, 66, 69 and 70 to schedule 16 are consequential amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the Competition Act 1980 to allow other regulators to pass information to the board without committing offences under their disclosure regime.
Taken together, the four new clauses and five amendments complement new clauses 12 and 13, which deal with the board's intervention powers. Together, they should provide the board with all the powers it needs to take action to protect the interests of clients and to obtain the evidence necessary to pursue disciplinary proceedings against authorised practitioners. They represent the result of the Lord Chancellor's undertaking during the Lords Report stage, which was conferred by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in our Committee stage, to consider further what powers of intervention and investigation the board might need. The Law Society sought to have similar amendments moved in the Lords Committee stage. Its amendments were modelled on its own papers.
In presenting these results of the further consideration which the Committee stage afforded us, I commend the new clauses to the House.

Mr. John Fraser: I confirm that we pressed for some, although not all, of the new clauses and amendments in Committee. They are welcome, and I hope that we can make speedy progress with them.

Mr. John Greenway: I have no wish to detain the House, which is faced with a galaxy of amendments and new clauses, or to intrude too much into these proceedings. However, Report stage allows Back-Bench Members to raise concerns. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
I welcome the new clauses, as do many organisations, such as the Law Society, which have been considering extending the availability of conveyancing by authorised practitioners. We all recognise that the Building Societies Act 1986 paved the way for this provision. We are anxious to ensure that there should not be any conflict of interests. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could confirm that there will be further consultation on clause 38, which allows the Lord Chancellor to make provision for regulations, after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
One issue causes me great concern. It relates to the potential conflict, not just of interest, but within the role of authorised practitioners who are, in effect, acting as agents for large financial institutions and building societies. It is impossible to regard the issue separately from the general supervision of the financial services industry and the Financial Services Act 1986.
Building societies, insurance companies and banks are generally tied agents of life assurance companies. Polarisation rules mean that, as tied agents, their duty and interest is to the life assurance company, but as conveyancers their interest and duty must be to the client. I must declare an interest as an insurance broker and representative of one of the insurance broking institutions. Independent financial advisers have a duty to the client, not just to the life office. Will my right hon. and learned Friend have particular regard to that? Over the next year


or so, we are likely to see further development of the financial services industry regulatory regime. Indeed, the first debate after the recess will be on precisely that subject.
I am concerned that there should be a proper fiduciary relationship, so that each part of any arrangement can be properly costed. The public should have the maximum possible safeguards. The House and the country will have noted that a large insurance company recently bought up 500 estate agency practices and has now effectively withdrawn from that market. A similar event would be a disaster for rural solicitors' practices and for the public whom they serve. There is a risk of small practices closing down because of the loss of conveyancing business only for the institutions to decide that conveyancing is less profitable than they thought. These are important considerations, as these firms would be lost.
I hope that my comments are helpful. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will say that those points have been taken on board.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for his welcome and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his contribution. I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes on behalf of independent financial advisers, with whose position I have the greatest sympathy, who are rightly watching the regime that we are creating for authorised conveyancing practitioners to ensure that proper safeguards are provided for clients and for the public as a whole.
The first point that my hon. Friend raised was on consultation. He will have noticed that in the Bill consultation is required statutorily on many points. My right hon. and noble Friend is anxious to consult. Indeed, I have had the opportunity of taking part in the consultation processes with interested parties, including independent financial advisers, to see that the structure that we create on the statutory framework is practical and achieves the objectives and the safeguards that we have set out to achieve, which we are debating today and which we debated in some depth in Committee in relation to this new clause and new clause 88.
My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his predecessors have consulted on some interesting possible developments in the financial services framework. They should tie in with what we are discussing today. I hope that those assurances are of assistance to my hon. Friend. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

INVESTIGATIONS ON BEHALF OF BOARD

'.—(1) If it appears to the Board desirable to do so—

(a) in connection with the discharge of any of its functions; and
(b) in the interests of customers or potential customers of an authorised practitioner,

it may appoint one or more competent persons ("the investigators") to investigate and report to it on the state and conduct of the affairs of that authorised practitioner.

(2) The Board shall give written notice of any such appointment to the authorised practitioner concerned.

(3) If the investigators think it necessary for the purposes of their investigation, they may also investigate the affairs of any qualified person who is acting, or has acted, on behalf of the authorised practitioner (so far as concerns the provision of conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner), after giving the qualified person written notice of their investigation.

(4) Any investigation under this section of the affairs of—

(a) any institution which is authorised by the Bank of England under Part I of the Banking Act 1987, to carry on a deposit taking business;
(b) any building society which is authorised to raise money from its members by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986; or
(c) any insurance company which is authorised under section 3 or 4 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982,

shall be subject to such direction (if any) given by the Lord Chancellor with a view to limiting the scope of the investigation to matters concerned with the provision of conveyancing services.

(5) Any such direction may be general or be given with respect to a particular investigation.

(6) It shall be the duty of every person whose affairs are being investigated and of any officer or employee of his—

(a) to produce to the investigators, within such time and at such place as they may reasonably require, all documents relating to the provision of conveyancing services by the practitioner which are in that person's custody or power;
(b) to provide the investigators, within such time as they may require, with such information as they may reasonably require with respect to the provision of those services; and
(c) to give the investigators such assistance in connection with the investigation as he is reasonably able to give.

(7) The investigators may take copies of, or extracts from, any document produced to them under subsection (6).

(8) This section applies in relation to a former authorised practitioner or former qualified person as it applies in relation to an authorised practitioner or qualified person.

(9) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to produce any document, or provide any information, which it is his duty to produce under subsection (6) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.

(10) Any person who, in response to any requirement imposed on him under this section, knowingly or recklessly provides any information or explanation or makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(11) Nothing in this section shall compel the production by an authorised practitioner or qualified person acting on his behalf of a document containing a privileged communication made by him or to him in that capacity.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

'.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure), restricted information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person shall not be disclosed—

(a) by the Board or any member of its staff;


(b) by any person appointed as an investigator under section (Investigations on behalf of Board) or any officer or servant of his; or
(c) by any person obtaining it directly or indirectly from a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b),

without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained and, if they are different, the person to whom it relates.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), information is restricted information for the purposes of this section if it was obtained (whether or not in response to any requirement that it be provided) for the purposes of, or in the discharge of functions under, any provision made by or under this Act.

(3) Information shall not be treated as restricted information for the purposes of this section if it has been made available to the public by virtue of being disclosed in any circumstances in which, or for any purpose for which, disclosure is not prevented by this section.

(4) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both;
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE

'.—(1) Section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information—

(a) with a view to the institution, or otherwise for the purposes, of any criminal proceedings;
(b) with a view to the institution, or otherwise for the purposes, of any civil proceedings arising under or by virtue of this Act;
(c) in a summary or collection of information framed in such a way as not to enable the identity of any person to whom the information relates to be ascertained; or
(d) in pursuance of any Community obligation.

(2) Section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information for the purpose of enabling or assisting—

(a) the Lord Chancellor to discharge any of his functions under this Act with respect to the Board or authorised practitioners;
(b) the Board to discharge any of its functions;
(c) the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers or the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to discharge any of its functions;
(d) the Building Societies Commission to discharge any of its functions;
(e) the competent authority or a designated agency, recognised investment exchange, recognised clearing house, recognised self-regulating organisation or recognised professional body (all those expressions having the meaning given in the Financial Services Act 1986) to discharge any of its functions;
(f) the Bank of England to discharge any of its functions;
(g) the Secretary of State to discharge any of his functions under this Act, the Financial Services Act 1986 or any enactment relating to competition, companies, insurance or insolvency;
(h) any inspector appointed by the Secretary of State under any of the enactments mentioned in paragraph (g) to discharge any of his functions;
(i) an official receiver to discharge any of his functions under any enactment relating to insolvency;
(j) a body which is a recognised professional body under section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to discharge any of its functions as such a body;
(k) the Insurance Brokers Registration Council to discharge any of its functions under the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977;

(l) any person appointed or authorised to discharge any powers under section 94, 106 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to exercise any of those powers;
(m) the Director to discharge any of his functions under—

(i) this Act;
(ii) the Fair Trading Act 1973 (other than Part II);
(iii) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
(iv) the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976;
(v) the Estate Agents Act 1979;
(vi) the Competition Act 1980;
(vii) the Financial Services Act 1986;
(viii) the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988;

(n) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to discharge any of its functions under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980;
(o) the Scottish Conveyancing and Executory Services Board to discharge any of its functions;
(p) an authority in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom to discharge any functions corresponding to—

(i) the functions of the Board, the Building Societies Commission or the Bank of England; or
(ii) those functions of the Secretary of State mentioned in paragraph (g);

(q) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal to discharge any of its functions under the Insolvency Act 1986;
(r) the Financial Services Tribunal to discharge any of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information for the purpose of enabling or assisting any public or other authority for the time being designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Lord Chancellor to discharge any functions which are specified in the order.

(4) An order under subsection (3) designating an authority for the purposes of this section may—

(a) impose conditions subject to which the disclosure of information is permitted by subsection (3); and
(b) otherwise restrict the circumstances in which disclosure is permitted.

(5) Where information has been disclosed by one person ("the first person") to another, by virtue of subsection (2), section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent that other person from disclosing that information to any person to whom it could have been disclosed by the first person by virtue of subsection (2).

(6) The Lord Chancellor may by order modify the application of any provision of this section so as—

(a) to prevent the disclosure of information by virtue of that provision; or
(b) to restrict the extent to which disclosure of information is permitted by virtue of that provision.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

BOARD'S INTERVENTION POWERS

'.—(1) The powers conferred on the Board by this section may be exercised if it appears to the Board to be desirable to do so for the purpose of protecting the interests of the clients, or prospective clients, of an authorised practitioner.

(2) The Board may, in particular, exercise any such power where it appears to it—

(a) that an authorised practitioner who is an individual is no longer fit to provide conveyancing services;
(b) that any person carrying on the business of an authorised practitioner is not fit to provide such services; or


(c) that an authorised practitioner has failed, or is likely to fail, to comply with any regulation made under section 38.

(3) The Board may direct the authorised practitioner not to dispose of, or otherwise deal with, except in accordance with the terms of the direction—

(a) any assets belonging to any client of the authorised practitioner and held by or under the control of the authorised practitioner in connection with his business as an authorised practitioner; or
(b) any assets of such a kind which are specified in the direction.

(4) The Board may direct the authorised practitioner to transfer to the Board, or to such persons ("the trustees") as may be specified in the direction—

(a) all assets belonging to any client of that practitioner and held by or under his control in connection with his business as an authorised practitioner; or
(b) any assets of such a kind which are specified in the direction.

(5) Any assets which have been transferred as a result of a direction given under subsection (4) shall be held by the Board, or by the trustees, on trust for the client concerned.

(6) The trustees may deal with any assets which have been transferred to them only in accordance with directions given to them by the Board.

(7) In this section—
assets" includes any sum of money held (in whatever form and whether or not in any bank, building society or other account) by the authorised practitioner or on behalf of the client concerned and any instrument or other document belonging to that client; and
authorised practitioner" includes a person whose authorisation has been suspended or revoked under section 37.

(8) Any direction under this section—

(a) must be given in writing;
(b) must state the reason why it is being given;
(c) shall take effect on such date as may be specified in the direction (which may be the date on which it is served on the authorised practitioner);
(d) may be varied or revoked by a further direction given by the Board.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 13

BOARD'S INTERVENTION POWERS: SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

'.—(1) In this section—
the intervention powers" means the powers given to the Board by section (Board's powers of intervention); and
a direction" means a direction given under that section.

(2) An authorised practitioner to whom a direction is given may appeal against it to a Conveyancing Appeal Tribunal.

(3) Any authorised practitioner to whom a direction is given shall comply with it as soon as it takes effect (and whether or not he proposes to appeal).

(4) If, on an application made to the High Court by the Board, the court is satisfied—

(a) that an authorised practitioner has failed, within a reasonable time, to comply with any direction given to it; or
(b) that there is a reasonable likelihood that an authorised practitioner will so fail,

it may make an order requiring the authorised practitioner, and any other person whom the court considers it appropriate to subject to its order, to take such steps as the court may direct with a view to securing compliance with the direction.

(5) Where an authorised practitioner is—


(a) an authorised person under the Financial Services Act 1986; or
(b) an appointed representative (as defined in section 44(2) of that Act) of such an authorised person,

the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the body by reference to which the authorised person acquired its authorisation under that Act.

(6) Where an authorised practitioner is—

(a) an institution which is authorised by the Bank of England under Part I of the Banking Act 1987 to carry on a deposit-taking business; or
(b) an appointed representative of such an institution,

the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the Bank of England.

(7) Where an authorised practitioner is—

(a) a building society which is authorised to raise money from its members by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986; or
(b) an appointed representative of such a building society,

the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the Commission.

(8) Where an authorised practitioner falls within more than one of subsections (5) to (7), the Board shall comply with each of the subsections in question.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 14

THE COUNCIL FOR LICENSED CONVEYANCERS

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Council for Licensed Conveyancers shall have the powers necessary to enable it to become—

(a) an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights of audience under section 25(2)(a);
(b) an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights to conduct litigation under section 26(2)(a); and
(c) an approved body for the purposes of granting, in accordance with section 46, exemption from the provisions of section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (preparation of probate papers).

(2) The Council may exercise the powers given to it by this section only with respect to persons who are licensed conveyancers.

(3) Where the Council—

(a) becomes an authorised body for the purposes of section 25 and grants any right of audience;
(b) becomes an authorised body for the purposes of section 26 and grants any right to conduct litigation; or
(c) becomes an approved body for the purposes of section 46 and grants an exemption under that section,

it shall do so by issuing a licence to the licensed conveyancer to whom the right or exemption is being granted.

(4) Any such licence may be granted as a separate licence or as part of a composite licence comprising the licensed conveyancer's licence issued under Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and any other licence which the Council may grant to the licensed conveyancer concerned.

(5) The Council's general duty shall include the duty to ensure that the standards of competence and professional conduct among licensed conveyancers who are granted rights of audience, rights to conduct litigation or an exemption under section 46 are sufficient to secure adequate protection for consumers, and that the advocacy, litigation or (as the case may be) probate services provided by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently.

(6) Where the Council exercises any of its powers in connection with—



(a) an application under section 27 for authorisation or an application under Schedule 8 for approval; or
(b) the granting of any right of audience or right to conduct litigation or of an exemption under section46,

it shall do so subject to any requirements to which it is subject in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the grant of any such right or exemption.

(7) Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) makes further provision in connection with the powers given to the Council by this section and the provision made by the Act of 1985 in relation to licensed conveyancers, including amendments of Part II of that Act.

(8) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such—

(a) amendments of, or modifications to, the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1985; or
(b) transitional or consequential provision,

as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the provision made by this section and Schedule (Licensed conveyancers).

(9) Subject to any provision made by this section, Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) or any order made by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (8), the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1985 shall, with the necessary modifications, apply with respect to—

(a) any application for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence;
(b) any such licence;
(c) the practice of any licensed conveyancer which is carried on by virtue of any such licence;
(d) rules made by the Council under Schedule (Licensed conveyancers);
(e) the management and control by licensed conveyancers (or by licensed conveyancers together with persons who are not licensed conveyancers) of bodies corporate carrying on businesses which include the provision of advocacy, litigation or probate services; and
(f) any other matter dealt with by this section or Schedule (Licensed conveyancers),

as they apply with respect to the corresponding matters dealt with by Part II of that Act.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 11, 72, 75, 80 and 81.

The Solicitor-General: The amendments, although necessarily bulky—I apologise to the House that they are bulky, but they will be recognised by members of the Committee as following our previous discussions—are straightforward in their main purpose, which is to extend the powers of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers so that it will have the opportunity to apply, under the framework in part II of the Bill, for approval to license conveyancers to undertake probate work, and authorisation to grant them rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation.
The council is a statutory body, established under the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to grant licences and regulate practitioners solely for the provision of conveyancing services. It therefore has no power to license its members to do other work.
Under clause 27 of the Bill, however, professional or other bodies will be able to apply for authorisation to grant their members rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. Under clause 46, bodies may be approved by the Lord Chancellor to grant their members

exemptions from the provisions of section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974, thus enabling them to undertake probate work.
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has already shown its interest in seeking such authorisation and approval. Furthermore, in the Green and White Papers that preceded the Bill, the Government made it clear that they intended that licensed conveyancers should be able to offer probate services.
It is therefore necessary to amend the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to enable the council to pursue applications for authorisation or approval under those provisions, and the new clause 14 and first part of the new schedule provide for that.
The procedures required in the event of a successful application are set out in detail to be consistent with the framing of the original legislation. The amendments will not in themselves, however—this should be understood—give the council the power to grant any further rights or exemptions. They will simply place it on the same footing as other bodies able to seek authorisation in due course.
Part II of the schedule extends the council's more detailed powers to enable it to operate and to regulate its members more efficiently and effectively, and to improve the position of the consumer client. They include increased powers to delegate functions to committees of the council, and to intervene in the practice of a licensed conveyancer; revised powers to deal with cases in which the professional services provided are inadequate, including a new power to award compensation of up to £1,000 in such cases and adopt for licensed conveyancers the powers in relation to solicitors that were added to the Bill in Committee in this House; and finally, additional powers to require licensed conveyancers to account for deposit interest on money held for clients, and powers to endorse or attach conditions to licences.
Amendments Nos. 72, 78, 80 and 81 concern necessary minor consequential and transitional changes, and repeals.
The amendments will enable the new profession of licensed conveyancers to seek to develop other new areas of business in the provision of legal services, to the benefit, we hope, of the profession and the consumer, and to make further changes to increase consumer protection.

Mr. Fraser: I thank the Solicitor-General for his comments. Did the Council of Licensed Conveyancers ask for those powers to obtain rights of audience, did it ask solely in relation to probate work, or did it ask at all? Perhaps the Solicitor-General can confirm that only 200 licensed conveyancers are actually in private practice, At the end of 1993, the Government will have provided £466,000 in subsidy to the licensed conveyancers' body. Is that expenditure to continue? Is it consistent with the Government's rather market-orientated, vigorous financial approach to those matters?
I welcome the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to the Government Front Bench. It is always good to see Lambeth councillors in the House. One is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is nice to see another on the Government Front Bench. It is only a pity that hon. Members cannot hear him talk.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: One need not go through the rather enormous declarations of interest that all those who served on the Standing Committee went through in their traverses between one side of the legal


profession and the other. Although I do not intend to do that, it will shorten matters if I inform the House—most hon. Members are aware of this—that I shall be speaking on behalf of the Law Society, as I did in Committee. Although my personal thoughts may penetrate my arguments, it will be much easier if everyone presumes, unless I say otherwise, that the views that I am giving are those of the Law Society.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has more or less made the points that I wanted to make. However, may I underline one of them, which I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with in his answer. The Law Society's solicitors' branch believes that this is an entirely proper new clause. The creation of licensed conveyancers to compete with solicitors is fair enough, but if they continued to receive public subsidy, that would not be totally satisfactory; indeed, it would be unsatisfactory.

7 pm

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise only to sound a note of dissent from the tendency to praise with faint damns. I welcome the new clause and the expenditure. We shall achieve a social purpose by breaking the solicitors' monopoly over conveyancing. Therefore, the expenditure to achieve that end is justified. We are creating a new professional. Our creation needs the encouragement and support that he is getting. On that basis, I welcome the new clause.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I do not know whether I am talking out of turn. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill and I saw the papers only about an hour ago. Therefore, the House will forgive me if I am somewhat confused about the matter.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the use of authorised conveyancers in probate cases. This may therefore be an opportune moment to ask him a question about that. Little was said about probate practice when the Bill was discussed in Committee. If authorised conveyancers are to be allowed to do probate work, will provision be made to ensure that reasonable charges are set by them for the work that they undertake? Solicitors' costs are taxed. Solicitors charge far less than banks for their probate services. The general public will not be given the protection that they ought to have unless the Bill contains such a provision. I have been unable to spot one. Is a complaints procedure provided for in the Bill, to which the general public will have access, in respect of the probate services that the new profession will be allowed to provide?

The Solicitor-General: This new profession will supplement the great solicitors' profession which has existed for hundreds of years. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has left the Chamber. To some extent, he can claim to be the midwife of the new profession, and to some extent the midwife's fees have been paid in the form of the £466,000 that was mentioned. I take the figure from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I do not have it in front of me. However, that will be pump-priming money to enable this professional body to get off the ground.
There are about 700 licensed conveyancers. The hon. Member for Norwood was right when he said that only about 200 of them are in independent private practice. Most of the others are employed by solicitors. A good many of them are legal executives, and some of them are quite distinguished. That is a sound basis for a new profession.
I shall seek to find the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) about the taxation of costs. The Bill will create a framework within which the Council for Licensed Conveyancers will be able to provide protection to the public of the kind that the Law Society seeks to provide for the public in relation to solicitors. I do not suggest that that protection is as sophisticated and advanced as that which has been developed by the Law Society over a long period. That, however, is the objective, and that is why the Government have primed the pump.

Mr. Vaz: Do the Government intend to continue to provide money for the council? Do they intend to get some of it back? Is the council to be self-financing in the way that the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board is to be self-financing?

The Solicitor-General: There is both a similarity and a distinction. We do not intend to seek to get back the pump-priming money. That is where there is a distinction, compared with the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. The board figure is £900,000. That is the figure that the hon. Gentleman and I discussed in Committee. I intended to write to him, and I apologise for the fact that I did so only today, with more details of the make-up of that sum. It is intended that some of the start-up money for the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board should be recouped. The purpose of the money resolution is that the necessary financial structure should be capable of being put in place.

Mr. Vaz: Is it right that the latest grant of £130,000 for the next three years will be the last grant that the Government intend to give to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers?

The Solicitor-General: I do not know the answer to that question. However, several hon. Members have asked whether the council is to become self-supporting. That is most certainly the Government's intention. I shall seek to find out whether a decision has been reached on whether that is to be the last pump-priming figure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE

'.—(1) This section applies to any communication made to or by a person who is not a barrister or solicitor at any time when that person is—

(a) providing advocacy or litigation services as an authorised advocate or authorised litigator;
(b) providing conveyancing services as an authorised practitioner; or
(c) providing probate services as a probate practitioner.

(2) Any such communication shall in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the person in question had at all material times been acting as his client's solicitor.

(3) In subsection (1), "probate practitioner" means a person to whom section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare probate papers etc.) does not apply.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause extends the concept of legal professional privilege so as to apply to the new classes of legal practitioner established by the Bill—that is to say, authorised advocates, authorised litigators, authorised practitioners and probate practitioners.
Legal professional privilege is based on the practice, developed in the Court of Chancery in the first instance, which ensures—this is a sensible and thoroughly up-to-date purpose—that communications made to and from a legal adviser for the purpose of obtaining and providing legal advice and assistance are protected from disclosure in the course of any subsequent legal proceedings. The reason is not undue love of secrecy; the protection exists to enable the client to confide fully in his adviser without fear of disclosure. That is valuable in the interests of the administration of justice.
Clearly, a person seeking advice from one of the new classes of legal practitioner being created by the Bill should be in no worse position, as regards the confidentiality of his communications to and from the practitioner, than if he were seeking advice from an established legal practitioner.
The new clause therefore ensures that communications to or from one of the new legal practitioners will enjoy legal professional privilege, just as if the practitioner acting for the client had been a solicitor.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16

DISCRIMINATION BY, OR IN RELATION TO, ADVOCATES

'.—(1) The following shall be inserted in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 after section 35A (as inserted by this Act)—

Advocates Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates.

35B.—(1) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to taking any person as his pupil, to discriminate against a woman—

(a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining whom he will take as his pupil;
(b) in respect of any terms on which he offers to take her as his pupil; or
(c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to take her as his pupil.

(2) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to a woman who is a pupil, to discriminate against her—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to her as a pupil;
(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to her;
(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to her; or
(d) by terminating the relationship or by subjecting her to any pressure to terminate the relationship or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to an advocate, to discriminate against a woman.

(4) In this section—


'advocate' means a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such; and
'pupil' has the meaning commonly associated with its use in the context of a person training to be an advocate.

(5) Section 3 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of any provision of Part II.

(6) This section does not apply to England and Wales."

(2) The following shall be inserted in the Race Relations Act 1976 after section 26A (as inserted by this Act)—

Advocates Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates.

26B.—(1) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to taking any person as his pupil, to discriminate against a person—

(a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining whom he will take as his pupil;
(b) in respect of any terms on which he offers to take any person as his pupil; or
(c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to take a person as his pupil.

(2) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to a person who is a pupil, to discriminate against him—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to him as a pupil;
(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to him;
(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to him; or
(d) by terminating the relationship or by subjecting him to any pressure to terminate the relationship or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to an advocate, to discriminate against any person.

(4) In this section—

'advocate' means a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such; and
'pupil' has the meaning commonly associated with its use in the context of a person training to be an advocate.

(5) This section does not apply to England and Wales.".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 107.

The Attorney-General: In Committee, the Government introduced, and the Committee accepted, amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 to make it unlawful for a barrister or a barrister's clerk to discriminate against a pupil on grounds of sex or race and for any person giving, withholding or accepting instructions to a barrister to discriminate on grounds of sex or race. That is effected by clause 53 of the Bill.
In Committee the Government gave an assurance that an amendment to cover Scotland would be tabled on Report. The new clause and the amendment fulfil that undertaking, which has the support of the Faculty of Advocates. I am much fortified by the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who marks the importance that we attach to the presence of a Scottish Minister when Scottish legislation passes through the House.
A separate clause is required to cover Scotland, because there are differences between the ways in which barristers in England and Wales practise and the way in which advocates in Scotland practise. The most relevant


difference for these purposes is that advocates do not practise from chambers in the way that barristers do. Therefore, references to tenancies, which occur in clause 53, would not have any meaning. I have said enough about this thoroughly worthwhile provision.

Mr. Fraser: As I am of Scottish ancestry, it is better that I speak to the new clause. Of course we welcome it, as we welcomed the extension of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 to barristers and solicitors. It is a pity—I say this with the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—that the new clause does not appear in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which finished its Committee stage at 3 o'clock this morning and is due to come back to the House. We say that for the practical reason that it would be much better if a Scottish clause were found in a Scottish Bill. It is almost the only Scottish provision in an English and Welsh Bill. It would sit better in Scottish legislation. Perhaps that could be considered at a later stage.

The Attorney-General: It is a great pity that several things do not appear in the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We mark the peculiarity—I shall not go so far as to say anomaly—to which the hon. Gentleman referred by the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I should be delighted if he said something about it, although I doubt that there is much more to be said. My hon. Friend is here and he will say at once if he wishes to contribute. I think that he would. I shall postpone the remainder of my answer for a moment, if that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I had not anticipated that I would have to speak on the new clause. The Faculty of Advocates—I am an advocate—would regard discrimination of any kind as unthinkable. It is altogether appropriate that the new clause should be inserted in this Bill, but I shall consider the point that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) mentioned in case there is any possibility of putting the provision in the Scottish Bill. However, I believe that it is satisfactory in this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to leave it at that, I shall be most grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 17

ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS ETC. BY JUSTICES IN CERTAIN PROBATE BUSINESS

'.—(1) Every justice shall have power to administer any oath or take any affidavit which is required for the purposes of an application for a grant of probate or letters of administration made in any non-contentious or common form probate business.

(2) A justice before whom any oath or affidavit is taken or made under this section shall state in the jurat or attestation at what place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or made.

(3) No justice shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in any proceedings in which he is interested.

(4) A document purporting to be signed by a justice administering an oath or taking an affidavit shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the signature and without proof that he is a justice.

(5) In this section—

"affidavit" has the same meaning as in the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889;
"justice" means a justice of the peace;
"letters of administration" includes all letters of administration of the effects of deceased persons, whether with or without a will annexed, and whether granted for general, special or limited purposes; and
"non-contentious or common form probate business" has the same meaning as in section 128 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 17 enables justices of the peace to administer oaths or take affidavits in non-contentious probate proceedings. It provides that the justices must state in the jurat when and where the oath or affidavit was taken or made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 18

POWER OF PARTIES IN CERTAIN CASES TO FILL VACANCY

.—(1) In section 10 of the Arbitration Act 1950 (power of court in certain cases to appoint an arbitrator or umpire), the following shall be substituted for subsection (3)—

"(3) In any case where—

(a) an arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the two appointed by the parties or in some other manner specified in the agreement; and
(b) one of the parties ("the party in default") refuses to appoint an arbitrator or does not do so within the time specified in the agreement or, if no time is specified, within a reasonable time,

the other party to the agreement, having appointed his arbitrator, may serve the party in default with a written notice to appoint an arbitrator.

(3A) A notice under subsection (3) must indicate whether it is served for the purposes of subsection (3B) or for the purposes of subsection (3C).

(3B) Where a notice is served for the purposes of this subsection, then unless a contrary intention is expressed in the agreement, if the required appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice—

(a) the party who gave the notice may appoint his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator in the reference; and
(b) his award shall be binding on both parties as if he had been appointed by consent.

(3C) Where a notice is served for the purposes of this subsection, then, if the required appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice the High Court or a judge thereof may, on the application of the party who gave the notice, appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the party in default who shall have the like powers to act in the reference and make an award (and, if the case so requires, the like duty in relation to the appointment of a third arbitrator) as if he had been appointed in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

(3D) The High Court or a judge thereof may set aside any appointment made by virtue of subsection (3B)."

(2) Section 10 of the Act of 1950 shall continue to apply in relation to any arbitration agreement entered into before the commencement of this section as if this section had not been enacted.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement, whether or not as the result of a variation made after the commencement of this section.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

New clause 19

COSTS AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ETC. IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

' . The following section shall be inserted after section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985—

"Costs against legal representatives etc.

19A.—(1) In any criminal proceedings—

(a) the Court of Appeal;
(b) the Crown Court; or
(c) a magistrates' court,

may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with regulations.

(2) Regulations shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by a magistrates' court under subsection (1) may appeal to the Crown Court.

(3) In this section—

"legal or other representative", in relation to any proceedings, means a person who is exercising a right of audience, or a right to conduct litigation, on behalf of any party to the proceedings;
"regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor; and
"wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—


(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative or any employee of a representative; or
(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay." '.—[The Attorney-General]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: As amendments to the proposed new clause, amendment (e), in line 13, at end insert
'and that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by the Crown Court under Subsection (1) may appeal to the Court of Appeal.'.

Amendment (g), in line 13, at end insert—
'(2A) Where an appeal under subsection (2) is successful in whole or in part the Court hearing the appeal may make an order for payment of the legal or other representative's costs of the original hearing and the appeal to be made either out of central funds or, where the order under subsection (1) was made at the instance of any party to the proceedings, by that party".

Amendment (b), in line 22, after 'representative', insert
'in breach of that representative's duty to the court or to his client'.

Amendment (c), in line 22, after 'representative', insert
'or employee of the Crown Prosecution Service'.

Amendment (d), in line 25, at end insert—
'(4) Regulations made by virtue of this section—

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 18 amends section 1c(3) of the Arbitration Act 1950 to provide for the appointment of an arbitrator in a reference, which is to be to three arbitrators without the need for an application to the court to make such an appointment in circumstances where one party fails to make the appointment expected of him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

(a) shall require a court which proposes to make a costs order against a legal or other representative to allow him a reasonable opportunity to appear before it and show cause why it should not do so; and
(b) shall provide that no such order shall be made after the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the proceedings are disposed of by the court.'.

Government amendment No. 13.

Government amendment No. 14, in clause 4, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
'(5A) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1), the court may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules of court.
(5B) In subsection (5A), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or
(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

As amendments to the proposed amendment, amendment (a), in line 8, after 'representative', insert
'in breach of that representative's duty to the court or to his client'.

Amendment (b), in line 10, at end insert—

'(5C) Rules of court—

(a) shall provide that where the court proposes to make a costs order against a legal or other representative it shall allow him a reasonable opportunity to appear before it and show cause why it should not do so; and
(b) shall provide that no such order shall be made after the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the proceedings are disposed of by the court.

(5D) Where an appeal against an order under subsection

'(1) In any civil proceedings, a magistrates' court may disallow or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules.

(1A) In subsection (1), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or
(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 8, after 'representative', insert
'in breach of that representative's duty to the court or to his client'.

Government amendments Nos. 38 to 41.

Government amendment No. 42, in clause 93, page 74, line 31, at end insert 'and
(d) shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken under the rules may appeal to the Crown Court".'.

Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end insert,
'and where such an appeal is successful in whole or in part the Crown Court may make an order for payment of the legal or other representative's costs of the original hearing and the appeal to be made either out of central funds or where the order under subsection (1) was made at the instance of any party to the proceedings, by that party'.

Government amendment No. 183.

The Attorney-General: The package of amendments of which new clause 19 forms part was foreshadowed in another place and in Committee. It establishes in primary legislation an identical power and identical test for its exercise in each court whereby legal and other representatives may be ordered to compensate others for costs that result from the representatives' own fault. In doing so, the amendments clear up a confusion in the law about the applicable test in such cases in the Supreme Court. After debates in another place, and with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, the Government are in no doubt that the applicable test should be the one of simple negligence and that the test needs to be clearly established in primary legislation. In plain terms, justice surely demands that all the courts have power to shift the loss from an innocent party on to the representative whose negligence has caused it.
I hope that amendment No. 14 will be taken with the new clause or, if not, immediately afterwards. I trust that it is relevant for me to speak to it now.
Amendment No. 14 establishes the simple negligence test for the High Court in the Court of Appeal civil

(5A) is successful in whole or in part the court may make an order for payment of the legal or other representative's costs of the original hearing and the appeal to be made either out of central funds or where the order under subsection (5A) was made at the instance of any party to the proceedings, by that party.'.

Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

Government amendments No. 37, in clause 93, page 73, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

division as a gloss on the general costs power in section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Amendment No. 16 achieves the same result for civil cases in the Crown court through section 52 of the same Act.

Amendment No. 37 brings clause 93 into line for the magistrates civil jurisdiction. New clause 19 does the same for criminal proceedings in the Crown court and magistrates courts by means of a new section in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 38 and 40 apply the power to representatives who are not lawyers. Amendment No. 42 and new clause 19(2) provide the important new safeguard of an appeal from the magistrates to the Crown court. Amendments Nos. 39, 41 and 183 are purely consequential.
I should make clear the relationship between the amendments and the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Whenever costs are incurred through the fault of a representative, the power which is the subject of the amendments will be available. It will not be affected in any way by the inherent disciplinary power of the Supreme Court. Conversely, the latter remains intact.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that, when one reads the new clause against the background of other clauses in other Bills on these matters, and when one reads them against one's experience of practice—the last time that we debated the matter I forgot to declare a slight interest as a practising barrister, and a pecuniary interest—one of the greatest problems not addressed by either the new clause or existing legislation is that faced by the representative? The representative, whether for the prosecution or the defence, must act in accordance with the instructions of the plaintiff or defendant. There comes a point when those instructions can create the problems that give rise to the impression of either negligence or incompetence. However, the representative is not in a position to tell the court the true reasons for his or her actions, simply because to do so would be a breach of privilege.

The Attorney-General: One trusts that a course of action followed by an advocate is always at least consistent


with, if not the result of, instructions properly given. But negligence is a breach of the duty to take reasonable care. Therefore. all the circumstances must be taken into account. If the complaint is the result of the proper application of an advocate's discretion to instructions properly given to him, that will be a complete defence. The inherent jurisdiction of the court remains intact and the negligence test applicable under these proposals in no way affects any stricter test applying under the inherent jurisdiction.

Mr. Fraser: I want to concentrate on the amendments. There is no disagreement about the principle in the new clause. However, practitioners are entitled to some protection against these provisions, particularly since it is not always as easy as the Attorney-General said for a representative to explain openly exactly what his client has said. For instance, if may be alleged against a representative that the time of the court has been negligently wasted because a case was fixed as a plea of guilty and, at the last moment, it was changed to a plea of not guilty. However, that may have been the result of instructions given by the client. It may be difficult to advance arguments about the relationship between a solicitor or barrister and his client in explaining why the costs have been thrown away. They may have to say to the court, "He told me for 12 months that he was guilty and at the last moment he said that he was not guilty." That may be embarrassing for the person involved and it would not be easy for the representative to put forward that argument.
What is more, despite what the Attorney-General said, there is no suggestion that, if the Crown prosecution service is negligent, it should pay the costs of the other parties. What he is suggesting in those circumstances would not lead to equality between prosecution and defence. In those cases, the costs may be paid out of public funds and not personally by the Crown prosecution service.
The amendments seek to ensure that costs will be awarded against a representative only if they have been negligent or seriously neglected their duty to the court. Also, before any order is made, a legal representative must be given the opportunity to make representations against it so that such matters will not be dealt with in their absence. We advocate that, if such an order is made, there should be a right of appeal against it and that if an appeal is successful, the costs of conducting it ought to be given to the advocate who was wrongly stigmatised by the order.
There was a case last year which was written up in some detail this month in the London criminal practitioners magazine. It involved five cases of solicitors against whom costs were ordered under the existing inherent jurisdiction. When the matter went to the Court of Appeal, it was clear that the fault did not lie with those against whom the orders for costs were made. The appeal had to be financed by the Law Society and, as far as I know, the costs were not paid by the Crown prosecution service, out of public funds or, as might be argued under the circumstances, because he seems to be at the heart of the matter, by the judge.
Such matters should not be undertaken lightly. If such orders can be made against them, legal representatives should be adequately protected in the way we have suggested in our amendments.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I agree with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my name accompanies the illustrious names of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Norwood on the amendments. I ask the Government to consider the amendments sympathetically. Even if they are not prepared today to think again, they might bear in mind the fact that another place has yet to consider amendments from this House.
As hon. Members know, the basic position of inherent jurisdiction now means that cost orders can be made in circumstances in which there is a serious dereliction of duty to the court. The duty to the court is paramount.
I wish to echo the words of various hon. Members who have mentioned the amount, and often the complexity, of the new clauses and amendments that are still arriving at this late stage. The original intention of the Bill many moons ago was to extend the existing powers to the magistrates court. That was acceptable to the profession. Now, at this late stage, we have a considerable and sudden increase in powers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that after consideration it was decided that the overall test should be straight negligence. However, orders can now be made against a legal representative for
any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission".
The making of such orders virtually needs the adoption of completely new procedures. It is relatively simple to assess from the bench a serious dereliction of duty to the court, but when we are considering what constitutes
any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission",
the trials within trials in criminal cases will be as nothing compared to trials that may feature legal representatives before minds are made up. There has been little consultation on this because of the late arrival of the new clause, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to think again.
The hon. Member for Norwood referred to the specific amendments which bear my name. New clause 19 gives the right of appeal from a magistrates court to a Crown court, and amendment (e) gives the right of appeal from the Crown court upwards. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If there can be an appeal from the magistrates court, there should be an appeal from the Crown court. It is only fair. The justification is that we are dealing with an extremely serious matter for the lawyers involved and the higher the court, the more serious it is.
Amendment (g) deals with the costs of an appeal. At present, under the new clause, an appeal can be made from the magistrates court to the Crown court, but there is no power to award costs to a successful appellant. I pray in aid the words of the Lord Chief Justice in November 1989 when he was considering five cases of Crown court cost orders against solicitors. He expressed concern at the lack of such a power and indicated a preference for a power to award costs from central funds. That is what amendment (g) seeks to do. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will consider it sympathetically. It was raised in another place and the Lord Chancellor was unclear as to what would be the outcome.
Amendment (b) relates the new provision to the court and the client. Therefore, we retain the negligence test of
any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission
and we add


in breach of that representative's duty to the court or to his client.
That limits the provision and makes it easier for a court to make up its mind. Also, it may prevent the chaos that could occur as a result of the breadth of the original provision. Also, because of a duty to the court or to the client, it removes the other party to any particular proceeding from urging that such an order be made against his adversary. That is important in criminal cases where some heat may have been engendered. It is vital that the defence advocate remains free to defend his client fearlessly as well as to the best of his ability.
Amendment (c) gives the right of appeal from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal.
Amendment (d) is important. It gives legal representatives the right to appear before any cost order is made against them. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General knows, Supreme Court rules, order 62, rule 11(4), give such a right of appearance to the legal representative in civil cases. If we are to be rational, that should apply to any criminal proceedings.
It is all very well to say that natural justice will prevail and any judge or judicial officer is bound to allow legal representatives to come before him before he makes such an order, but the very fact that it is mandatory under the Supreme Court rules, but is not mentioned in the Bill, is not right. The absence of that stipulation could encourage the odd, occasional abuse. No one in his wildest dreams suggests that there will be many cases of something so serious, where a legal representative is not given a chance to say what happened and why, but it could happen. That should not be allowed, so my right hon. and learned Friend should treat the new clause sympathetically.

Mr. Alex Carlile: As a practitioner, and one who occasionally sits as a recorder, I agree entirely with the Government that there was a need for some definition and for consistent standards to be applied. I therefore welcome the general approach that has been taken. However, the common test of simple negligence, as it has already been described this evening, is broad. It lets in a degree of subjectivity, and possibly even capriciousness, which might affect practitioners unfairly.
The test set out in new clause 19 includes a reference to "improper" and "unreasonable" behaviour. Those of us who make the criminal appeal reports part of our bedtime reading will know that every now and then, perhaps once or twice a year, a judge has been known to be unreasonable. Occasionally, a judge does something that, in terms of the quality of justice that he is dispensing, is slightly beyond the bounds of propriety. It would be wrong if the practitioner found himself the victim of a charge of judicial impropriety or unreasonableness against which he had no appeal.
I invite the Government to take the view that there must be a balance of justice which enables the practitioner, who is affected by what could be an extremely damaging order against him, to try to obtain redress from a higher court. A substantial proportion of a practitioner's income in one year might be affected, possibly because the judge had taken an unfavourable view of the client. rather than the lawyer, and allowed that attitude to rub off on the lawyer.

There is a serious need for an appeal procedure to accompany the clear definition of the standards to be applied.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I shall follow the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) by asking whether there have been any consultations with the Law Society and the Bar council on the wording of the new clause and whether both those organisations have expressed their satisfaction with the wording used.
Having listened to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, one can envisage a scenario in which a tetchy judge considers a particular line of cross-examination to be wasting the court's time. Judges tend to he short with advocates who do that. I wonder whether the effect of the new clause might be to enable the judge to hold in terrorem over the advocate the possibility that he might lose a day's refresher fees for having taken up too much time on a particular line of cross-examination. That might even apply to the winding-up speech at the end of the trial, when the judge may decide that what is being put to the jury is entirely irrelevant to the jury's consideration, whereas the advocate may feel that he is doing the best that he can for his client. It would be wrong if in those circumstances the advocate could be told that, if he did not sit down and shut up, he would lose a day's fees.

Mr. Bermingham: Earlier, I asked the Attorney-General a specific question—what happens if the advocate seeks to follow instructions and is then the subject of criticism? In my experience, in a long trial, often the question being asked of the witness at the beginning of the trial only assumes relevance in the judge's or jury's minds much later on. What will happen in those circumstances? Is the advocate to be criticised and made the subject of a cost order simply because he has foreseen an issue that may arise and become mature in three weeks time? The provisions as drawn do not protect against that.
I also asked the Attorney-General why the Crown prosecution service was exempt. What is the difference between it and a defence advocate, at whatever level? What protection is there for the independent advocate, whether solicitor or barrister, employed by the Crown prosecution service who is given, as sometimes happens, instructions which cannot possibly be followed because of lack of evidence? Decisions have to be taken. Trials are sometimes dropped on the day. When instructions cannot be followed for those reasons, it is due to negligence not on the part of representatives, but on the part of those who instruct.
It is wrong that a professional person—solicitor, barrister, prosecution or defence counsel—has to set out to clear his or her name, which may cost incredibly large sums of money, depending on where the matter ends up, when it may well have been the judge who was at fault. In a perfect world, all judges would be perfect, but we live in the real world where, as we all know, Monday morning blues can take over and what appears to be the most obscure point turns into a major row and temper s are lost. That happens to us all at some time. Are we then to be told that, although we may ultimately be proved to he in the right, we shall be penalised?
The one thing that the press love is to see an advocate or a lawyer criticised. It makes raging headlines. The Government are saying that they will give a right of appeal in certain cases and allow the matter to be examined. The


appellant may be proved right, as in the case of the five London solicitors, who have suffered not just the cost of clearing themselves, but adverse publicity. The press never apologise.
That has happened to me in my professional career as a solicitor. About 15 years ago, the Sheffield Star ran a story saying that I had been excluded from the cells. It made front page headlines on a Saturday night. A mistake had been made, but because it was said in court, it was covered by privilege and I could not sue. A lawyer had made a mistake—he was never briefed again, but that was another matter.
The same thing happened to me at the Bar. Once again, the Sheffield Star—a paper which does not seem to like me very much, although I cannot understand why—stated that a lawyer had been criticised. The Bar council and the senate said that it was perfectly proper and that every step had been taken. They made absolutely no criticism. But a judge had got the wrong end of the stick. What compensation is granted? It may be thought that I have a personal gripe about this matter, and I have. Experience has taught me over the years that Monday morning is the worst day of the week, and not just because it is Monday morning and therefore everyone's worst day of the week.
If the Attorney-General is going to he fair to those who have to perform a public duty standing up in a courtroom, he should be really fair and ensure that when judicial criticism is wrong, there is a right of reparation for the advocate, be he the prosecutor or the defender, in whatever court, at whatever level.
Perhaps the Attorney-General would think along the lines of allowing a little favourable publicity when a lawyer is cleared—at least that would be fair. All of us who practise the law have suffered in this way at some stage. Parliament is supposed to be the protector of the people; perhaps it should also protect those who sometimes have to work in conditions which are unfair and in circumstances in which they are not always popular. Sometimes, what happens on Monday morning can be the result of an argument in another forum on Sunday night in which one did not take part.

The Attorney-General: That was a moving plea from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). We are all familiar with Monday morning blues; some of us are familiar with the blues on Tuesday, Wednesday. Thursday and Friday as well. I am afraid that one has to have a broad back as an advocate—to say nothing of what is required of a Law Officer. If one is wrongly criticised, it is my experience that judges are usually fair enough to acknowledge the fact and to make amends.
I wish to deal first with consultation. The amendments establish a simple point of principle—that lawyers are to be liable in costs for the consequences of their negligence. That is quite a popular and simple point. The issue of the appropriate tests for such powers was raised in Committee in another place, when the Law Society sponsored an amendment to what is now clause 93 which would have substituted
serious dereliction of duty to the court
for the test of the clause.
Before Third Reading in another place, the Lord Chancellor's officials had discussed with the Law Society the Department's own view of the current law and the probability that it would need to be clarified in the Bill.

The Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls having agreed, the Lord Chancellor wrote to the president of the Law Society on 30 April, consulting him on the proposal to establish a simple negligence test in the Bill. The president replied on 6 June, apologising for his delay and expressing his preference for leaving the law alone, but making some specific points on the proposal.
Since then, there has been further correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the president. The Government amendments reflect the view taken by the Lord Chancellor and his officials during those consultations, so it can be fairly said that there has been consultation with the president.
I take seriously what has been said about the potential gravity for practitioners of the exercise by the court of this power. The power itself is difficult to criticise, but it is of course possible to criticise a hypothetical example of its exercise. The Bill does not provide for an appeal from the exercise by magistrates in a magistrates court of this power to the Crown court. Amendment (e) seeks to introduce that.
We cannot contemplate costs being paid out of central funds if there were to be a successful appeal. It is a principle strongly adhered to that central funds should not be liable in the event of compensation being paid for the exercise of a judicial function. My right hon. and noble Friend and I have, however, given careful thought to whether there should be a right of appeal against the exercise of this power in the Crown court and, having heeded this Opposition amendment, I can tell the House that it will be accepted.
I think that that will be seen as a fair response, but I cannot be so accommodating about central funds, for the reasons that I have given. This is a substantial concession, since amendment (e) lies at the heart of the anxieties that have been expressed.
To answer the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, the position of the Crown prosecution service is as follows. Under section 9 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 there is provision for an order to be made against the service itself when the advocate is an employee of the service, and against the agent personally in the case of an agent. So there is noexemption—

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

The Attorney-General: I think that I have dealt with that point, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Amendment (b) would make it a condition for the exercise of the cost power that there be a breach of the representative's duty to the court or his client. The same provision is made for other proceedings by amendments (a) to amendments Nos. 14 and 37. The Government's view is that, those amendments are not correctly conceived.
While the concept of breach of duty to the court or client may well be the foundation for the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that formulation can add nothing to the perfectly clear statutory test laid clown in new clause 19 (3)(a) and in the Government's equivalent amendments to clause 4 and clause 93. Indeed, the concept of duty could only either repeat what is already there or reintroduce the danger that it is the Government's purpose to remove—of confusion with some more restricted test.
The effect of amendment (c) would be to apply the cost power against representatives in criminal proceedings to lawyers employed by the Crown prosecution service. I have already dealt with that subject, so I proceed gratefully to amendment (d), which would require regulations to make procedural provisions, first, for a reasonable opportunity for representatives to be heard and, secondly, for no order to be made more than six months after the procedures are disposed of. Originally, clause 93 (4) covered all proceedings in the magistrates court. That subsection requires the magistrates court rule committee to lay down certain procedural requirements for the exercise of the magistrates' new cost power.
New clause 19 separates out criminal proceedings because they are best dealt with in the comprehensive code for costs in criminal proceedings contained in the Prosecution of Offences Act. One consequence is that there will be no requirement for rules or regulations to deal with such procedural matters in relation to criminal proceedings in the magistrates court. But the Government never intended to create any such requirement in relation to the Crown court or any court apart from the magistrates courts.
In general, it is not desirable to require rule committees to make provision which it should be in their power to make. For example, the whole machinery of costs in the High Court as set out in order 62 depends on a general statutory power which it is the rule committee's duty to use to the best possible effect. Clause 93 makes an exception to that general position which is justified, on balance, by the novelty of the magistrates' power to order representatives to pay costs.
The responsibility of the magistrates courts rules committee to regulate the new power is similarly new, but no such novelty applies to the Lord Chancellor's power under the Prosecution of Offences Act to make provision in relation to the costs of criminal proceedings. It is simply unnecessary, and therefore undesirable, to make equivalent provision for criminal proceedings.
Moreover, certain procedural aspects of criminal proceedings have in the past been dealt with by practice direction and it does not seem sensible to require the Lord Chancellor to duplicate whatever might be best dealt with in that way.
I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled. One at least of them has enabled me to make a substantial concession which I believe goes to the heart of hon. Members' anxieties and I hope that the House will consider that an appropriate way to respond. I must invite the House to reject the remaining amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made to the clause: (e), in line 13, at end insert
'and that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by the Crown Court under Subsection (1) may appeal to the Court of Appeal.'.—[Mr. Temple-Morris.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New clause 20

EXTENSION OF POWERS OF JUST1CLS' CLERKS

'. In section 28 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (general powers and duties of justices' clerks) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) Such rules may also make provision enabling things authorised to be done by, to or before a justices' clerk (whether by virtue of subsection (1) above or otherwise) to be done instead by, to or before—

(a) a person appointed by a magistrates' courts committee to assist him;
(b) where he is a part-time justices' clerk, any member of his staff who has been appointed by the magistrates' courts committee to assist him in his duties as such;
(c) any officer appointed by the committee of magistrates to be his deputy or to assist him.".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS ETC. BY REGISTERED PATENT AGENTS AND TRADE MARK AGENTS

'.—(1) Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare certain instruments) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) (persons exempt from subsection (1)), the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (a)

"(aa) a registered trade mark agent drawing or preparing any instrument relating to any design, trade mark or service mark;
(ab) a registered patent agent drawing or preparing any instrument relating to any invention, design, technical information, trade mark or service mark."

(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
(3A) In subsection (2)—

"registered trade mark agent" has the same meaning as in section 282(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; and
"registered patent agent" has the same meaning as in section 275(1) of that Act".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 116.

The Attorney-General: The new clause and the amendment amend section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which makes it an offence for an unqualified person to prepare certain instruments so as to permit registered trade mark agents to draw or prepare any instrument relating to any design, trade mark or service mark, and to permit registered patent agents to draw or prepare any instrument relating to any invention, design, technical information, trade mark or service mark. The new clause also defines the meaning of those terms. Amendment No. 116 ensures that the provisions of new clause 21 will not be undermined by the provisions of section 102 and 102(a) of the Patents Act 1977.
The present monopoly is not thought to serve any real purpose in consumer protection and unnecessarily adds to


the cost of the service that trade mark and patent agents provide to the public. As the monopoly relates neither to advocacy nor to the conduct of litigation and as these transfers are not conveyances in the sense in which that term is used in part II of the Bill, there is no way in which the monopoly can be altered under the machinery created by the Bill.
The amendments have the support of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and the Institute of Trade Mark Agents. Looked at in the round, they are in the general public interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

AGREEMENTS WITH SOLICITORS FOR PAYMENT BY HOURLY RATES

'.—(1) Section 57 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (non-contentious business agreements) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) In subsection (2) (method of payment which may be agreed), after the words "gross sum" there shall be inserted "or by reference to an hourly rate".

(3) In subsection (4), for the words "Subject to subsection (5)" there shall be substituted "Subject to subsections (5) and (7)".

(4) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(6) Subsection (7) applies where the agreement provides for the remuneration of the solicitor to be by reference to an hourly rate.

(7) If, on the taxation of any costs, the agreement is relied on by the solicitor and the client objects to the amount of the costs (but is not alleging that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable), the taxing officer may enquire into—

(a) the number of hours worked by the solicitor; and
(b) whether the number of hours worked by him was excessive."

(5) In section 59(1) of the Act of 1974 (method of payment which may be agreed in contentious business agreement) after the words "gross sum" there shall be inserted "or by reference to an hourly rate".

(6) In section 60(1) of the Act of 1974 (which among other things provides for section 69 of that Act not to apply to contentious business agreements), after the word "or" there shall be inserted "(except in the case of an agreement which provides for the solicitor to be remunerated by reference to an hourly rate)".

(7) In section 61 of the Act of 1974 (enforcement of contentious business agreements), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4)—

"(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where a contentious business agreement provides for the remuneration of the solicitor to be by reference to an hourly rate.

(4B) If on the taxation of any costs the agreement is relied on by the solicitor and the client objects to the amount of the costs (but is not alleging that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable), the taxing officer may enquire into—

(a) the number of hours worked by the solicitor; and
(b) whether the number of hours worked by him was excessive." '.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a modest amendment that was made at the request of the Law Society. It provides that an agreement

between the solicitor and his client about the solicitor's hourly charging rate may constitute a contentious or non-contentious business agreement. Those to whom the clause matters will understand that language.

Mr. Vaz: I support the new clause. My constituents sometimes complain that they do not know how much they are being charged by solicitors. They wait until the end of their cases and when they receive the bill, they inevitably feel that they are being charged too much. That applies not only to those who receive legal aid but lo those who do not. It is appropriate that, when the client goes initially to see a solicitor, he and the solicitor should agree an hourly rate. That is in the consumers' interest, and the rate should be supplied by the solicitor in writing so that it is clear from the start exactly how much the client is to be charged.

Mr. Temple-Morris: We are proceeding so fast that one does not have time to say thanks. The Law Society has asked me to say that it is extremely grateful for the co-operation on new clause 22. In order to save time later, I should also like to say that there is general gratitude for the co-operation that has prevailed on many new clauses, not least the next groups with which we shall deal, beginning with Government new clauses 22, 23 and 27.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 23

FOREIGN LAWYERS: RECOGNISED BODIES AND PARTNERSHIPS WITH SOLICITORS

'.—(1) The Law Society shall maintain a register of foreign lawyers for the purposes of this section.

(2) A foreign lawyer who wishes to be registered under this section must apply to the Society in accordance with the requirements of Part I of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies).

(3) The power to make rules under—

(a) the following provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974—

(i) section 31 (professional practice, conduct and discipline);
(ii) section 32 (accounts and trust accounts);
(iii) section 34 (accountants' reports);
(iv) section 36 (Compensation Fund); and
(v) section 37 (professional indemnity); and

(b) section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated practices),

shall also be exercisable in relation to registered foreign lawyers.

(4) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), any such power may be exercised so as—

(a) to make different provision with respect to solicitors who enter into multi-national partnerships to the provision made with respect to other solicitors;
(b) to make different provision with respect to the management and control of recognised bodies by solicitors and registered foreign lawyers to the provision made with respect to the management and control of recognised bodies by solicitors;
(c) to make different provision with respect to registered foreign lawyers who are members of multi-national partnerships to the provision made with respect to solicitors; or
(d) to make different provision with respect to officers of recognised bodies who are registered foreign lawyers to the provision made with respect to officers of recognised bodies who are solicitors.

(5) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), the Lord Chancellor may by order provide that any enactment or instrument—

(a) passed or made before the commencement of this section;
(b) having effect in relation to solicitors; and
(c) specified in the order,

shall have effect with respect to registered foreign lawyers as it has effect with respect to solicitors.

(6) An order under subsection (5) may provide for an enactment or instrument to have effect with respect to registered foreign lawyers subject to such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order.

(7) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), the Lord Chancellor may by order provide that any enactment or instrument—

(a) passed or made before the commencement of this section;
(b) having effect in relation to recognised bodies; and
(c) specified in the order,

shall, in its application in relation to recognised bodies whose officers include one or more registered foreign lawyers, have effect with such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order.

(8) Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies) shall have effect for the purposes of supplementing this section.

(9) In this section and in Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies)—

"foreign lawyer" means a person who is not a solicitor or barrister but who is a member, and entitled to practise as such, of a legal profession regulated within a jurisdiction outside England and Wales;
"multi-national partnership" means a partnership whose members consist of one or more registered foreign lawyers and one or more solicitors;
"recognised body" has the same meaning as in section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (management and control by solicitors of incorporated practices); and
"registered foreign lawyer" means a foreign lawyer who is registered under this section.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendments: Nos. 158, 102, 103, 105, 129, 96, 123 and 128.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) for welcoming this new clause and the amendments. They fulfil undertakings given by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on Second Reading.
The purpose of the amendments is to provide a framework in which multinational partnerships consisting of English and Welsh solicitors and foreign lawyers can be subjected to the minimum regulation necessary to provide protection to the clients of such partnerships or incorporated bodies.
The amendments have five main components. They require the Law Society to maintain a register of foreign lawyers who are entitled to enter into multinational partnerships or recognised bodies with solicitors. They amend the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to permit the creation of such recognised bodies, managed and controlled by solicitors and foreign lawyers. They give power to the Law Society to extend the rules that it makes

for solicitors in respect of professional practice, conduct and discipline, the keeping of clients' money and the compensation and indemnity funds to registered foreign lawyers who are members of such multinational partnerships.
The overall effect is to provide a proper framework for this new type of multinational partnership for which the way was cleared by clause 54, which removes the statutory inhibition on the formation of multinational partnerships. I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 27

REPRESENTATION UNDER THE LEGAL AID ACT 1988

'.—(1) Nothing in this Part shall affect the right of a person who is represented in proceedings in the Supreme Court or the House of Lords under the Legal Aid Act 1988 to select his legal representative.

(2) The power to make regulations with respect to representation under section 2(7) or 32(8) of that Act shall not be exercised so as to provide that representation in any such proceedings may only be by a single barrister, solicitor or other legal representative (but that is not to be taken as restricting the power to make regulations under section 34(2)(e) of that Act).'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 25—Representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988 in Supreme Court and in care proceedings or proceedings for contempt in any court—

'(1) Nothing in this Part shall affect the right of a person who is represented in the Supreme Court under Part IV of the Legal Aid Act (civil legal aid) or who is represented in any court under Part VI of that Act (legal aid in special cases) to select his legal representative.

(2) The power to make regulations with respect to representation under section 2(7) of that Act shall not be exercised so as to provide that representation in civil proceedings in the Supreme Court or in care proceedings or proceedings for contempt in any court may only be by a single barrister, solicitor or other legal representative (but that is not to be taken as restricting the power to make regulations under section 34(2)(e) of that Act).'.

New clause 28—Advice and assistance by way of representation for defendants in domestic possession proceeding—

'The following section shall be inserted in the Legal Aid Act 1988, after section 9—

"Advice and assistance by way of representation for defendants in domestic possession proceedings

9A. (1) Regulations shall provide for advice and assistance by way of representation to be available at court to defendants in possession proceedings relating to domestic premises, without reference to their financial resources.

(2) In this section, 'domestic premises' means any premises which are wholly or mainly used as a private dwelling.".'.

Government amendments Nos. 154, 155 and 156.

The Attorney-General: During consideration in another place there was some worry that, in opening the way for the extension of rights of audience in the Crown court, the Bill might also have made it possible for the Government


to limit the right of a defendant to select his legal representatives or effectively to limit the categories of legal representatives from whom he could choose by limiting the numbers of lawyers on a case. That is, of course, no part of the Government's plan, nor is it any part of our plans to impose or require fee sharing.
A litigant's ability to choose his legal representatives—I use the plural advisedly—is an important part of the safeguards of access to justice in a general case. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor therefore accepted an amendment that was designed to make it clear that the defendant's choice was to be preserved. In doing so he also made it clear that, in defence of the legal aid fund and all those who pay for it, he must be able to secure value for money and there was a need to ensure that the amendment was drafted to allow for that.
On reflection it became clear that some reworking was necessary. The amendments that resulted in the existing clause 49 were introduced after careful consideration and extensive discussion with both branches of the legal profession. Broadly, their effect is to make it impossible for the Government to prescribe for any proceedings in the Crown court the number of representatives or their category, but to leave unchanged both the Lord Chancellor's powers to decide how much their work is separately worth to the legal aid fund, and also the court's powers to decide that the circumstances of a particular case mean that one representative will do where two would be usual.
The amendments, as far as they went, were broadly welcomed by the Standing Committee. Other amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) would have extended the provisions to legally aided proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Appeal. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether the principle of the Government's amendments might be extended to some or all of the higher courts.
The amendments are the result of that consideration. They go further in that they extend the principles to the House of Lords as well. They are comparatively simple. The existing clause 49, which is restricted to representation in the Crown court under part V of the Legal Aid Act 1988, will be replaced by a new clause that extends to all the higher courts, including the House of Lords, and is identical in structure to the existing clause. The result is that the present rights of the legally aided client to select his representatives will be preserved in full. The present power, under the 1988 Act, to make regulations limiting the number of legal representatives to one will no longer apply to the Supreme Court and the House of Lords, but the Lord Chancellor's powers to make remuneration regulations reflecting the value to the legal aid fund of the work done will be preserved.
I believe that that will be seen as a helpful response to the representations made in Committee and elsewhere.

8 pm

Mr. Fraser: The new clauses and amendments are helpful because, had they not been introduced, relations between the professions would have been soured with the extension of the rights of audience. The Opposition tabled new clause 25, which has been taken with this group. It enables two legal representatives to be appointed even in contempt and care proceedings. Is that new clause

necessary, or are its provisions similar to those of the Government new clause, in which case we need not press it any further?

Mr. Alex Carlile: As one of those who pressed the Attorney-General on this in Committee, I am grateful for the new clause and in particular its extension to the whole of the Supreme Court, which includes the Crown court. The whole basis of legal practices in many parts of the country—in rural areas such as my constituency as well as in many of our large cities—is that the client comes to the solicitor, although the solicitor may not necessarily have the expertise to take the case to its conclusion, even if he has the right of audience to do so. Therefore, the client is best served by a specialist preparer and a specialist advocate. The new clause will continue those arrangements.
The county court is not included in the new clause. We discussed the situation in the county court when we explored the various possibilities in Committee. The county court is, quite rightly, to have a much expanded jurisdiction, and it will deal with many of the serious civil cases, particularly those involving personal injury. It is to be hoped that the litigant in the county court will not be adversely affected by any requirements to be set by the Legal Aid Board. It is to be hoped that the civil litigant will still be able, in the wide range of cases in which he is entitled nowdays to have a specialist preparer and specialist advocate, to have those services into the future.

Mr. Vaz: I too welcome the new clause. I should have been one of those who would have created a row, souring relations not just between the professions, but between the two Front Benches. The Attorney-General has accepted an important principle. I only wish that a statement about it could have been made earlier, as that would have meant that people would not have had to lobby so long and hard.
The Attorney-General's acceptance of the principle was spoilt when he talked about value for money in legal aid. That goes back to a point made by the Solicitor-General in the Committee considering the Legal Aid Bill in 1988, when he said that the interest of justice had to be made cost-effective. We believe that legal aid is a right. It is the only means by which people can protect their rights in court. At a time when £1 million is being thrown away on the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board and £460,000 is being given away to the Council of Licensed Conveyancers, the Attorney-General could be a little more supportive of the legal aid scheme, rather than applying the pure Thatcherite principles that I am afraid have affected this important part of policy.

The Attorney-General: The application of Thatcherite principles has been responsible for a vast increase in expenditure—by almost 10 times—over the past 10 years.
The Government's new clause and provision is wider in scope than new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I hope that that deals with his anxiety.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that substantial work will be dealt with in the county court under the provisions of part 1. The Government will take careful note, as I am sure will the Legal Aid Board, which is independent of the Government, of the points that he made. I am grateful for what has been said in this short debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

TYING-IN ARRANGEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOANS

'.—(1) In this section "residential property loan" means any loan which—

(a) is secured on land in the United Kingdom; and
(b) is made to an individual in respect of the acquisition of land which is for his residential use or the residential use of a dependant of his.

(2) No person ("the lender") shall enter into an agreement with another ("the borrower") for the provision to the borrower by the lender of a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services, unless the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are complied with before the agreement is entered into.

(3) The conditions are that the lender—

(a) informs the borrower by notice that the residential property loan, and each controlled service to which the proposed agreement relates, are separate services;
(b) informs the borrower by notice whether the terms and conditions of the proposed residential property loan will, if the loan is made in accordance with the proposed agreement, be capable of subsequently being varied by the lender;
(c) provides the borrower with a statement of—

(i) the price which will be payable by the borrower for each of the controlled services if they are all provided in accordance with the terms of the proposed agreement; and
(ii) the extent to which (if at all) the terms and conditions of the proposed residential property loan would differ if it were to be provided by the lender without the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates being provided by the lender; and

(d) informs the borrower by notice that, if the borrower declines to take from the lender any of the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates, the lender will not on that account refuse to provide the proposed loan.

(4) Where a person advertises, or in any other manner promotes—

(a) the provision of any controlled services which, in the course of his business, he offers to provide in conjunction with the making by him of residential property loans; or
(b) the making by him, in the course of his business, of any arrangements for the provision of any controlled services in conjunction with the making by him or any other person of residential property loans,

he shall comply with such requirements as to the information to be given, or which may not be given, in any such advertisement or promotion as the Secretary of State may by regulations impose.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 31—

Tying-in arrangements: supplemental provisions.

Government new clause 32—Tying-in: offences.
Government new clause 33—Tying-in: enforcement.
Government amendment No. 177.

Amendment No. 186, in clause 88, page 70, line 16, leave out subsections (2) to (10) and insert—

'(2) The Lord Chancellor may by regulation, and in the absence of any code or codes of practice acceptable to him dealing adequately with the matters specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) below, make such provision as he considers expedient with a view to securing that—

(a) no borrower (which for the purposes of this section shall include a prospecitve borrower) shall be unfairly or unreasonably obliged to take, or agree to take, a residential property loan subject to a condition that any other services required by the borrower are to be provided by the lender or any other person, or any such other services subject to a condition that a residential property loan is to be made by a particular lender, and
(b) if any such other services as aforesaid are proposed to be provided, the lender shall offer to provide to the borrower details in writing of any consideration payable.'.

Amendment No. 187, in clause 100, page 79, line 2, after '50', insert '88(2)'.

Government amendment No. 180.

The Solicitor-General: These new clauses and amendments deal with the important topic, which we discussed in detail in Committee, of tying in and the perceived abuse, as it can be, of the mortgage lender using his potentially coercive power to the disadvantage of the borrower. I explained in our debates in Committee that, when dealing with this problem, our touchstone must be openness, so that a borrower can see clearly how much a loan will cost him or her, whether that loan is provided alone or in conjunction with other services.
Clause 81 became clause 88 and new clauses 30 to 33, together with the amendments, create a slightly longer but a clear and coherent structure to deal with this potential abuse. I shall not outline them in great depth, but there are one or two points of principle to which I should draw attention.
New clause 30 prohibits people who make residential property loans from doing so as part of a package with other services unless certain conditions are first complied with. The lender must inform the borrower, by notice, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, that the loan and other services are separate services. He must inform the borrower whether the terms and conditions of the loan are variable and, if the borrower declines to take other services in the package, as many borrowers will, that the lender will not refuse to provide the loan simply for that reason.
The lender must provide the borrower with a statement of the price payable for each of the other services in the package, and the extent to which the terms and conditions of the loan would differ if it were made without the other services in the package. Differential pricing is to be permitted and may be justifiable and desirable, but it must be clear to the lender what he is buying and what he is paying for, whether he takes the package as a whole or just an individual service.
New clause 31 provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe which of the services the inclusion of which in a package with a loan cause the previous clause to apply. They may include insurance and other financial services, valuation and surveying services, conveyancing services and removal services. The clause also provides for connected agreements.
New clause 32 provides that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirements of new clause 30 or refuse to


grant a loan, having complied with the conditions of subsection (3) where the proposed borrower declines other services in the package.
New clause 33 provides for enforcement powers, which are to be carried out by the local trading standards officers, technically described as local weights and measures authorities and by the Director General of Fair Trading, except in Scotland, where prosecuting will, as always, be in the hands of the procurator fiscal.
There we have a full statutory framework to cover this important matter of tying in, which, as I said, we dealt with in considerable detail in Committee. I commend that new framework and the new clauses to the House.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I apologise for taking up just a few minutes on the important issue of tying in. In Committee, I said that I had had the assistance of the TSB Group plc on some issues arising in this context, and I should add that I have had the same assistance again for the purposes of this Report stage.
I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for the rethink that has taken place. We are often criticised in the House for having rather political and unconstructive Committee stages, but, within the bounds of political practicability, the Committee stage of this Bill has been a credit to the House and many useful changes have been made.
The principle which concerned those of us who spoke on the matter in Committee has been accepted and there is much thanks for that. The tying-in provision under clause 88 has been radically redrafted and now seems clearly to permit differential pricing of financial service packages.
In a sense, the financial services sector is, like the legal profession, facing regulatory powers and uncertainty about what will happen when the regulations are made. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will give an assurance that the regulations will be subject to a proper consultation procedure with all interested parties.
It is clear that the redrafted clauses have moved the previous clause 88 provision from being one under which tying in should be prohibited to one under which a mortgage lender may provide controlled services only after it has been through the bureaucratic hoop set out in new clause 30.
The financial services sector is concerned that those hoops, as I have called them, might impose unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on firms which would be wholly unjustified by the nature and incidence of the perceived malpractice that the Government are seeking to outlaw. That could have a considerable impact on costs, and any significant impact on costs is not absorbed but passed on to the consumer. We are concerned here to achieve value for money for the consumer and a fair deal for the consumer and the financial services institution providing the service.
I want to make some, I hope, constructive suggestions to reduce the administrative burdens associated with the proposals. It seems odd that, by reason of new clause 31(6)(a), another member of the same group of companies can be liable to be prosecuted for an offence committed by the lender under new clause 30, subsections (2) and (4), because the two companies are to be treated as one.
For example, under the provisions as drafted, if a customer applied to a bank for a loan and said that he would make his own arrangements for other services, such as insurance, the bank would not apparently have to

satisfy the conditions under new clause 30(3). However, if the customer later told the bank that he had decided to take a controlled service from a sister company, the requirements would bite. That they should bite in those circumstances seems questionable, when the lender had had no part in arranging the supply of the controlled service to the customer, nor stood to receive a direct benefit from the service being purchased.
It would therefore be helpful if the Government could look again at new clause 30 to see whether it could be amended so that the conditions in subsection (3) applied only in circumstances where the provision of controlled services had been arranged by the lender. After all, it would be self-evident to a borrower that the services he was buying were separate services.
If it were possible to amend the law in that way, it would be feasible to dispense with the provision under new clause 31(6) while maintaining the object of the tying-in provision. That would remove the unfair liability for prosecution which might be faced by suppliers of controlled services because they happened to be related to a lending company.
8.15 pm
In addition, new clause 31(9) defines the words "notice" and "statement". It would be a great help to financial institutions if the Government could assure them that it would be possible to combine all the information requirements under new clause 30 in just one document—which could, if it suited the lender, be the agreement itself.
It is not entirely clear why the requirement that the lender should inform the borrower whether the terms and conditions of the loan are capable of subsequently being varied is regarded as relevant in the context of tying in. Typically, some terms of the residential property loan, most obviously the interest rate applicable, will be variable, and that will apply whether or not the loan is part of the package. It is therefore an important issue upon which the institutions would welcome assistance.
New clause 31 does not appear to recognise circumstances where the lender prices a package in terms of an aggregation of individual prices for the individual controlled services, but as one or more package prices. Presumably the Government are prepared to allow package pricing, as it may well achieve in most cases the aims of value for money and a fair deal for the consumer. It is therefore an important point.
Finally, with regard to the regulations governing advertising and promotion, which it is envisaged that the Secretary of State may make, one hopes that it can be assumed that those regulations will be entirely consistent with other similar regulations. In particular, I have in mind those relating to the advertising of mortgage loans under the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 1989, which cover all personal loans to be secured on land, regardless of whether they are to be under regulated agreements, and with advertising rules for endowment. insurance under the Financial Services Act 1986.
All that sounds, and is, a little complicated, but they are issues of importance which, if not sorted out properly, could well adversely affect consumers when they walk into the bank or building society full of nervousness and trepidation to try to obtain what may well be the most important financial transaction of their lives. Therefore, clarification and clarity are of the utmost importance.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have had the benefit of advice from the Association of British Insurers, and I shall voice some of the points that it has made to me. As disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a director of Bowring Wales Ltd. and an insurance broker. Therefore, I am interested in the subject.
The Association of British Insurers feels that the new clauses are a great improvement, in terms of clarity, on those that we considered in Committee. It is particularly pleased that many of the points that it made have been taken into account and are to be found in the new clauses. In particular, a question that I raised about section 16 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 seems to have been resolved by the new clauses.
However, insurers remain concerned that they will be obliged to offer a loan without the other services where they had been seeking to offer that loan as part of a package. After all, insurance remains the main business of insurance companies, not the offering of loans. As the market develops, insurance companies may feel that they cannot continue to offer loans, and they may withdraw from the market. That would be a disadvantage because it would reduce the market available to consumers.
The Secretary of State has wide powers to go beyond the new clauses by amplification in orders and regulations. I note that he is required to consult the Director General of Fair Trading and others. It is therefore appropriate to seek an assurance that, in such an event, the Secretary of State would consult fully with the insurance industry and think carefully before proceeding with any orders or regulations.
The provisions of new clause 33 will be enforced by local weights and measures authorities and by the Director General of Fair Trading. That must mean, of necessity, that a range of local weights and measures authorities will be involved. Consequently, there must be the possibility of a variation in response. There could be a lack of uniform approach towards enforcement. I look for an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that he expects uniformity in the enforcement of the new provisions. It would be helpful if he could enlighten me on how he envisages that being achieved.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The new clauses are a useful package of protection for the consumer, and should be welcomed. One matter that concerns me is how to bring the package to the attention of the consumer. He must understand that they are there for his protection and that they prevent people offering to lend money doing certain things. Will there be a publicity campaign—a house buyer's charter—to draw attention to the measures? They are there to protect the consumer when he is buying a house, taking on an enormous mortgage burden and dealing with people presenting a package.
Another concern is that, although the conditions under new clause 30 apply to a lender, there is no reference to, for example, a mortgage broker, who can put together a package on the basis of commission. Is he also obliged to disclose his commission and to account to the buyer for that commission? A solicitor or a legal practitioner must do that when putting together a package for the client. Only when there is full disclosure can there be full protection. As I understand it, there is nothing in the new clauses to cover that.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said almost everything that I wished to say, so I shall not repeat it. Perhaps the way to deal with brokers would be for the Solicitor-General to say that the Director General of Fair Trading, in exercising his jurisdiction as the supervisor of consumer credit, would perhaps show the yellow card to any broker who had a consumer credit licence and was encouraging people to enter into package arrangements that would be illegal if offered by a lender but not expressly illegal if put together by a broker.
I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said about giving publicity to the right to choose, which a borrower should have so that he is not being given something that he wants tied in with something that he does not want and does not need.

The Solicitor-General: Our debates on this matter have been highly constructive, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for his kind remarks. We are trying to deal with what I believe has been, and can be, a real abuse of power. I am sure that the way to deal with it is by complete openness by the lender, with the borrower knowing what every ingredient of the package costs—above all, what the loan will cost, and then what the other services in connection with the loan will cost.
I shall deal first with the question of consultation. New clause 31(12) makes an express statutory requirement for consultation by the Lord Chancellor, first with the Director General of Fair Trading and then with all others with whom he sees fit to consult. That is a broad power, but I am confident that it is my right hon. and learned Friend's intention to consult widely. The way to achieve good legislation in this area is to put it to the industry and let it understand what we have in mind. It can then point out any inconsistencies and pitfalls, as it has done constuctively in the development of this new clause.
I am grateful to the Trustee Savings bank and the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me an early sight of their constructive comments. I do not believe that they and other commentators need be worried about the provision becoming unnecessarily bureaucratic. I think that that also answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who wanted to know how the borrower would get to know about it.
The structure of the new clauses means that the lender must notify the borrower by notice, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, of his rights and of the requirements in relation to the separate services and, of course, the separate pricing and the power to take some or all of the services on offer. That means that a borrower gets the forms in a way that immediately shows his rights and opportunities. There is no reason why that should not be backed up with publicity if that appears to be sensible. It is not something the statute provides, or needs to provide.
On advertising, what is required must be consistent with the requirements of the new clauses as a whole. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) for his kind remarks on behalf of the Association of British Insurers. I participated in some of the consultations with that body, among others, and the probing and constructive way in which it sought to ensure that the system should work in practice and should meet its needs has helped us to frame the new clauses in a way that I believe need cause it no anxiety.
I can think of no reason why insurance companies should be put off providing loans under the new framework. After all, it must be recognised that the provision of property loans is a sensible long-term investment for insurance companies. All that we are seeking is to ensure that the borrower, whose financial strength is of great importance to the insurance company, knows exactly what he is buying and is not being forced to buy something that he does not want at a price that he would not choose to pay if he were free to choose.
There are two answers to the question of enforcement. First, on the issue of uniformity, the whole matter will be supervised by the Director General of Fair Trading and he will keep an overview. Secondly, I know from personal professional experience a good deal about the work of the weights and measures and trading standards authorities. There was a time when I could claim some expertise in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Trading standards officers are served by journals, and it is amazing how quickly the result of any case or any problem particular to that area of enforcement is raised, discussed and commented upon in those journals. Consequently, one finds among those authorities a high degree of uniformity and a desire among enforcement officers to perform their duties in a sensible and uniform way.
This helpful debate has teased out a number of useful points, and we shall try to learn constructively from them in putting into operation the framework that we now have in sensible statutory form. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 31

TYING-IN ARRANGEMENTS: SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

'.—(1) In section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) "controlled services" means any services of a description prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.

(2) The order may, in particular, prescribe any description of—

(a) banking, insurance, investment, trusteeship, executorship or other financial services;
(b) services relating to the acquisition, valuation, surveying or disposal of property;
(c) conveyancing services; or
(d) removal services.

(3) Where a lender enters into—

(a) an agreement for the provision to a borrower of a residential property loan; and
(b) a separate agreement with the borrower for the provision to him of a controlled service,

those agreements shall be treated, for the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans), as a single agreement.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply with respect to any agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection if the lender proves—

(a) that it was not connected with the transaction in respect of which, or purpose for which, the borrower required the residential property loan; or
(b) where it was so connected, that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to know, that it was.

(5) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(1), the Secretary of State may by order specify—

(a) the circumstances in which land is to be treated as being for a person's residential use; and
(b) who are to be treated as a person's dependants.

(6) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans), this section and section (Tying-in: offences)—

(a) where the lender is a member of a group of companies, the lender and all the other members of the group shall be treated as one; and
(b) where the lender derives any financial benefit from the provision of a controlled service by any other person the lender shall be treated as providing that service.

(7) In subsection (6), "a group of companies" means a holding company and its subsidiaries within the meaning of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.

(8) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, for such purposes as may be prescribed by the order, paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (6) shall not have effect.

(9) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)—

"notice" means a notice in writing given in the form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
"price" shall have the meaning given by order made by the Secretary of State; and
"statement" means a statement in writing given in the form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(10) In relation to land in Scotland—

(a) "conveyancing services" has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; and
(b) the reference in section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(1) to a loan being secured on land shall be read as a reference to its being secured over land by a standard security.

(11) Before making any order or regulations under section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Director and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 32

TYING-IN: OFFENCES

'.—(l) If any person contravenes section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(2) or (4) he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Subsection (3) applies where—

(a) a person ("the lender") has, in relation to a proposed agreement for the provision to any person ("the borrower") of a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services, complied with the conditions mentioned in section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(3); and
(b) the borrower has declined to take from the lender one or more of the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates.

(3) The lender shall be guilty of an offence if he refuses to provide the borrower with the proposed residential loan or refuses to provide it to him—

(a) on the terms of the proposed agreement; or
(b) where they differ, on terms which are compatible with the statement required by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)(3)(c)(ii),

unless he proves that his reason for so refusing was unconnected with the borrower's having declined as mentioned in subsection (2)(b).

(4) Where a lender proposes to enter into—

(a) an agreement for the provision to a borrower of a residential property loan; and


(b) a separate agreement with the borrower for the provision to him of a controlled service,

those proposed agreements shall be treated, for the purposes of subsection (2), as a single proposed agreement.

(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(6) Subsection (7) applies where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate.

(7) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) any director, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or
(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(8) The fact that a person has committed an offence under this section in connection with any agreement shall not make the agreement void, or unenforceable (whether as a whole or in part) or otherwise affect its validity or give rise to any cause of action for breach of statutory duty.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 33

TYING-IN: ENFORCEMENT

'.—(1) Every local weights and measures authority ("an authority") and the Director shall have the duty of enforcing Sections (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) to (Tying-in: offences) and any regulations made under them.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be taken as authorising a local weights and measures authority in Scotland to institute proceedings for an offence.

(3) Where an authority propose to institute proceedings for an offence under section (Tying-in: offences) they shall give the Director notice of the intended proceedings together with a summary of the facts on which the charges are to be founded.

(4) Where an authority are under a duty to give such a notice and summary they shall not institute the proceedings until—

(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which they gave the required notice and summary; or
(b) if earlier, the date on which the Director notifies them of receipt of the notice and summary.

(5) Every authority shall, whenever the Director requires, report to him in such form and with such particulars as he requires on the exercise of their functions under this section.

(6) A duly authorised officer of the Director or of an authority ("an authorised officer") who has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence may have been committed under section (Tying-in: offences) may, at any reasonable time—

(a) enter any premises which are not used solely as a dwelling;
(b) require any officer, agent or other competent person on the premises who is, or may be, in possession of information relevant to an investigation in connection with the provision made by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or (Tying-in arrangements: supplemental), to provide such information;
(c) require the production of any document which may be relevant to such an investigation;

(d) take copies, or extracts, of any such documents;
(e) seize and retain any document which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under section (Tying-in: offences).

(7) Any authorised officer exercising any power given by subsection (6) shall, if asked to do so, produce evidence that he is such an officer.

(8) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant under this section if satisfied, on information on oath given by an authorised officer, that there is reasonable cause to believe that an offence may have been committed under section (Tying-in: offences) and that—

(a) entry to the premises concerned, or production of any documents which may be relevant to an investigation in connection with the provision made by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or (Tying-in arrangements: supplemental), has been or is likely to be refused to the authorised officer; or
(b) there is reasonable cause to believe that, if production of any such document were to be required by the authorised officer without a warrant having been issued under this section, the document would not be produced but would be removed from the premises or hidden, tampered with or destroyed.

(9) In the application of this section to Scotland, "justice of the peace" includes a sheriff and "information on oath" shall be read as "evidence on oath".

(10) A warrant issued under this section shall authorise the authorised officer (accompanied, where he considers it appropriate, by a constable or any other person)—

(a) to enter the premises specified in the information, using such force as is reasonably necessary; and
(b) to exercise any of the powers given to the authorised officer by subsection (6).

(11) If a person—

(a) intentionally obstructs an authorised officer in the exercise of any power under this section;
(b) intentionally fails to comply with any requirement properly imposed on him by an authorised officer in the exercise of any such power;
(c) fails, without reasonable excuse, to give to an authorised officer any assistance or information which he may reasonably require of him for the purpose of exercising any such power; or
(d) in giving to an authorised officer any information which he has been required to give to an authorised officer exercising any such power, makes any statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

(12) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (11)(a), (b) or (c) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(13) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (11)(d) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(14) Nothing in this section shall be taken to require any person to answer any question put to him by an authorised officer, or to give any information to an authorised officer, if to do so might incriminate him.

(15) In this section "document" includes information recorded in any form.

(16) In relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references in this section to its production include references to producing a copy of the information in legible form.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

INDEPENDENT REVIEW BODY

'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall establish an Independent Review Body to advise him on the annulment, cancellation or revocation of a conviction applicable to cases currently considered by the Secretary of State and by the Court of Appeal.

(2) The Independent Review Body shall consist of a legally qualified Chairman and up to 12 additional persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

(3) Membership will include a proportion of criminal lawyers but legal experience will not be regarded as the sole qualification.

(4) Casework would be distributed to a panel of up to three persons but in all cases the conclusions would be endorsed by the Review Body as a whole.

(5) The Review Body would be extra-judicial but would have the widest discretion as to the procedures to be adopted in any individual case.

(6) The Independent Review Body would be supplied with the relevant facts and papers relating to a case by the Home Office and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State after either—

(a) an informal inquiry or
(b) a full hearing with legal representation on both sides with the ability to recommend the award of legal aid in respect of representation by Counsel.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 10, in title, line 6, after 'Board', insert
'and an Independent Review Body'.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 seeks to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its 1982 report on miscarriages of justice. Had it been implemented then, there is little doubt that a number of the problems that have arisen since in our judicial system might not have done so. The new clause seeks to establish an independent review tribunal composed to a large extent but not exclusively of non-lawyers. A useful precedent has been set by the inquiry currently being conducted by Lord Justice May into the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire convictions, in which he is accompanied by lay assessors. New clause 5 would allow a tribunal wide discretion in regard to procedure, and I hope that it would also have powers to subpoena witnesses and documents. One of the problems confronting Sir John May was persuading some witnesses to give evidence and to produce relevant documents, and we should learn from that lesson.

Sir John Wheeler: It is very good of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to have given me notice of his intention to raise that subject and to refer to the 1982 Select Committee on Home Affairs. I am sure that the lessons to be drawn from the 1982 report are just as appropriate today, and perhaps the House and the Select Committee itself would do well to return to that topic once Lord Justice May has reported, to see what additional lessons are to be learned. Perhaps

the hon. Member for Sunderland, South agrees also that it will be important to consider Sir John's conclusions with great care against the 1982 report and tonight's debate.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who occupies a distinguished position as chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee now, and who was a member of it when it made the recommendations to which I refer in 1982. I look forward to the Committee returning to the subject under his guidance, because he appreciates, as do many right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions, that it is an issue that will not go away.
New clause 5 would allow the tribunal to consider evidence deemed inadmissable by the courts. I hope that one other matter considered by the Committee in 1982 will also be resolved in the terms of reference of any independent review tribunal, I refer to the requirement that the burden of proof must remain with the Crown to secure a conviction and not, as is increasingly the case, with defendants, to prove their innocence.
That relates to a fundamental principle of our judicial system, but regrettably, in a number of recent referrals to the Court of Appeal, it has appeared—I speak as someone who attended the Birmingham pub bombings appeal on several days in 1987 and early 1988—that defendants are required instead to prove their innocence. Our current law does not require them to do so. That point is one to which the Select Committee's 1982 report specifically drew attention, and I hope that that issue will be resolved once and for all.
The recommendations of the 1982 report received unanimous approval. That Committee was chaired by Sir John Eden, and its other members included the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who is not regarded as being on the wet side of the Conservative party, and for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is also not regarded as a member of the soggy, bleeding-heart wing of the Conservative party. I take heart from the fact that they all subscribed in 1982 to the report's conclusions, and I regret that one or two of them cannot be present this evening, to say whether they have since changed their minds or still stand by the recommendations to which they put their signatures some time ago.
The terms of new clause 5 were first embodied in an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and myself to the Criminal Justice Bill in June 1988. During my short time as a Member of Parliament, it has been a pleasure to be associated with the hon. Member for Harborough in respect of such issues. It will be apparent to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the political views of the hon. Member for Harborough and myself cover a wide spectrum. If that hon. Gentleman and I can agree on an issue, it should not be all that difficult for other right hon. and hon. Members to follow us. I pay tribute also to the consistency with which the hon. Member for Harborough was prepared to pursue the case of the six innocent men wrongly convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings long before it was a popular issue.
New clause 5 represents an idea whose time has come. As long ago as 1982, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in the wake of a number of appalling miscarriages of justice, decided to investigate that topic, and reported that, with the exception of the Home Office witnesses, it


interviewed no one who was against the idea of an independent tribunal. As long ago as 1976, the distinguished Lord Devlin first mooted the idea, and I am pleased to note that in their evidence to Sir John May's committee, the Bar Council, the Law Society and a host of other witnesses have called for some form of independent review tribunal.
I have received many letters on that and related issues, including one from a Law Lord giving the concept his support. I shall not embarrass him by naming him, as he would probably be blackballed from his club. When Sir John May reports, I hope that he will make such a recommendation, but we must be prepared for the possibility that he might not do so.
Everything that has happened in the eight years since the Select Committee's report confirms that wisdom of its recommendations, which were rejected by the Government. Had an independent review tribunal been in place there is no doubt that the Guildford and Woolwich convictions would have been overturned many years ago and without the anguish caused to the individuals directly concerned and to many others. The Maguire family would have had their convictions quashed many years ago and the people wrongly convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings would also have had their cases resolved some years ago.
The Birmingham case is particularly relevant because the case is deadlocked. The big problem is the Court of Appeal. The Birmingham case has already been to the Court of Appeal, where a mass of new evidence was presented. Instead of ordering a retrial, the Court of Appeal decided to adjudicate upon the new evidence itself in the absence of a jury. It threw out the appeal with contempt.
The problem is that the case is destined to go back to the Court of Appeal. However, no one who is conversant with the case believes that the Lord Chief Justice who presided at the previous appeal will accept any degree of the new evidence which may be put before him. No-one conversant with the issue has much faith in the Court of Appeal. That is why we are looking for an alternative way, in particular cases, of breaking the deadlock.
The purpose of the court of last resort, as it is sometimes called, or the independent review tribunal, is to correct mistakes. I do not complain about the fact that mistakes are made by our courts. Any legal system, however perfect, will make mistakes. I complain about the fact that we do not appear to have an adequate mechanism for owning up to mistakes and to a large extent that is due to the belief among senior members of the legal profession, that the system cannot make mistakes. One or two of those people have been frank enough to say that out loud and that does nothing to improve their credibility among those of us who mix in the real world.
For example, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who subsequently became Home Secretary, said in the House on 14 April 1948:
As a realist I do not believe that the chances of error in a murder case, with these various instruments of the State present, constitute a factor which we must consider … There is no practical possibility. The hon. and learned Member asks me to say that there is no possibility. Of course, a jury might go wrong, the Court of Criminal Appeal might go wrong, as might the House of Lords and the Home Secretary: they

might all be stricken mad and go wrong. But that is not a possibility which anyone can consider lightly. The hon. and learned Member"—
that is, whoever put that startling proposition to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe—
is moving into a realm of fantasy when he makes that suggestion."—[Official Report, 14 April 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1077.]
That is how difficult it is to persuade senior lawyers of the possibility that the legal system is capable of making mistakes. In passing, I mention that Sir David Maxwell Fyfe went on to hang Derek Bentley, who is widely regarded as having been innocent.
The next difficulty facing those of us who have attempted to raise serious miscarriages of justice is the belief among certain senior sections of the legal profession—I do not suggest that it is shared by all—that mistakes should not be admitted if they bring into question the credibility of the legal system. For that, we must be grateful to Lord Denning who, as so often, said out loud what others say only in the privacy of their clubs. In the spring of 1988, in a BBC2 programme entitled "Did you See?", he said in so many words that there were circumstances in which persons who were innocent should remain in gaol if the credibility of the legal system was threatened. I am grateful to him for saying that, because that describes fairly graphically, and brings home to many people, the problem that we face.

The Attorney-General: Would it not be fair to record that Lord Denning, with customary grace, has said publicly that he regards the opinion that he expressed then as a serious mistake?

Mr. Mullin: I was not aware of that, but I will take the Attorney-General's word for it. The opinion on which I know Lord Denning has backtracked is the judgment that he gave in 1980 when the Birmingham pub bombing appeal was referred to him and he made that remarkable and much quoted statement about the appalling vista that would arise if he were to allow the appeal. He has said that he was mistaken about that. We always welcome, however late in the day, a conversion; it is not for me to pour scorn on that.
All those who have campaigned over many years about the more celebrated cases of miscarriages of justice have had to face the problem of the extraordinary stubbornness of senior individuals in the legal system, due in part to their sheltered upbringings. Many of them tell us—having listened to some of their pronouncements, I am inclined to agree—that they have fine minds and are very intelligent. However, I am often struck by the fact that people who are so intelligent can also be very stupid at the same time, and that trait—I put it no higher than that—is to be found in some of the judicial responses to some of the more celebrated miscarriages of justice. That is why we need an independent review tribunal which is slightly more flexible than the Court of Appeal.
I will cite a few examples to make my point. Timothy Evans was hanged by mistake in 1950. In 1953, the person who carried out the murder for which Evans was executed—John Reginald Halliday Christie—was arrested and it was obvious to everyone concerned that he was responsible for the murder—everyone concerned, that is, except some of those at the highest levels of the legal


profession. An inquiry was set up under Mr. Scott Henderson which found that there was nothing to worry about.
A further inquiry under Mr. Justice or Lord Justice Brabin found, I believe—the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong—that while Evans might not have murdered his wife, he must have murdered the baby. That was complete nonsense, but it was not until 1966—after a campaign at least as great as that in relation to the Birmingham and Guildford cases—that the Home Secretary was finally prevailed upon to offer Timothy Evans a posthumous pardon. Even now, one or two hon. Members—lawyers, of course—have approached me saying that Evans was guilty all along.
In the Confait case, an inquiry set up under Sir Henry Fisher concluded that the youths who had just been released were probably guilty. Sir Henry had to be repudiated when the person responsible came forward.
In the Meehan case, Patrick Meehan was released from a life sentence and an inquiry was set up under Lord Hunter, a senior Scottish judge. That inquiry concluded that Meehan was probably guilty. Lord Hunter had to be repudiated when Meehan was compensated.
Perhaps the most celebrated illustration in recent years of difficulties with the Court of Appeal is the case of Cooper and McMahon, who were convicted in 1970 of a post office murder in Luton. It swiftly became apparent to most sensible people that there was something seriously wrong with the case. Four successive Home Secretaries referred the Cooper and McMahon case back to the Court of Appeal on four successive occasions. On each occasion the judges sat stony faced and said that they had heard nothing new. In the end, the Home Secretary of the day, now Lord Whitelaw, became so exasperated because he could think of no way of persuading the Court of Appeal to face up to what had gone wrong, that he simply ordered the gates of the prison to be opened, gave the men railway tickets and sent them home. That is how difficult it is to persuade the Court of Appeal to face up to serious mistakes.
Anyone who has read the judgment of Lord Roskill at the Guildford appeal in 1976 or 1977 will realise that that was an opportunity to end the Guildford case 13 years ago. It was obvious to everyone concerned that a mistake had been made. I commend to students of the subject the judgment of Lord Roskill explaining why those convictions were still satisfactory.
A department exists within the Home Office—I believe that it is called C3—to advise the Home Secretary on cases where there is cause for concern. I have had some dealings with that department. I have always found the individuals who work there courteous and well meaning but, generally speaking, useless at resolving problems. That is not their fault, but the fault of the system of which they form a part. They do not appear to have the power to conduct the slightest independent research, even to the extent of lifting a telephone, and their job seems to consist merely of poking holes in evidence submitted by others. I recall that Sir David Napley, who was interviewed by the Select Committee in 1982, said that he could not think of one case in which the C3 department took the initiative in getting a conviction quashed.
Anyone who doubts the difficulty with the C3 department should read the 22-page memorandum placed in the Library by the Home Secretary two years ago—no doubt it was drafted by the C3 department—explaining

why the Maguire convictions were safe and sound. There is even a page on why innocent contamination could not possibly be the cause of the difficulty, although the Home Secretary—no doubt prompted by the C3 department—now takes the view that innocent contamination is the latest fallback position. Anyone who wishes to celebrate the effectiveness of the present system should study that memorandum.
In 1983, the Government replied to the Select Committee rejecting its principal recommendation on the independent review tribunal saying that convictions were primarily a matter for the courts to decide. However, the Government sought the advice of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, who promised some greater flexibility in terms of ordering retrials and accepting references back from the Home Secretary.
If such a promise was made, it was reneged upon. In the Birmingham case, the judges immediately rejected with contempt an application for a retrial, although there was an enormous amount of new fact upon which a judgment would have to be made. At the end of the Birmingham judgment, which is fairly scandalous, the Lord Chief Justice went so far as to say, "As with so many cases referred to us by the Home Office, the longer it went on, the more convinced we became that the original convictions were safe." That was a message to the Home Secretary, because the Guildford and Woolwich cases were then in the pipeline. It meant, "Don't waste our time sending any more of these cases, because this is how they will end." That is how it was read by many at the time and we now know what happened.
I should like to think that the Government, and indeed all of us, have learnt some lessons from the experience of events in the past two years, particularly from the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire cases, but I suspect that that may not be the case. I am delighted that the Labour party and my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) broadly support an independent review tribunal. I welcome the support that that proposal has received from hon. Members from all parties. If the judges are unhappy about the suggestion, they have only themselves to blame. There have been many opportunities over the past decade or so for something to be done about those great scandals and I regret that they have not faced up to them.
An independent review tribunal is only one of the number of measures that will be necessary to restore the public credibility of the judicial system. We shall also have to stop convicting people on the basis of confessions obtained in police custody, which form the main part of the most celebrated wrongful convictions. We shall have to review the training and selection of judges and, in the light of what Sir John May recommends, we shall have to examine carefully the forensic service.
Our judicial system is being brought into discredit around the world by its inability to face up to mistakes. That is why I commend new clause 5 to the House.

Mr. John Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) have done the House a service by tabling new clause 5, which is perhaps one of the most important proposals that we are discussing tonight. I fear that there is increasing concern about appellate procedures in cases in which there is some tension and emotion and particularly in terrorist cases. The track record in recent


and not so recent trials of that nature and the limited view taken by the Court of Appeal are causes for concern. The existing machinery obviously needs to be improved.
Against that background, the Labour party has published proposals for the need for an independent review body to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice. What eventually emerges may not necessarily be in the precise form as presently proposed. The proposals emphasise the need for a wide consultative procedure that must include the composition of the review body and the establishment of an effective, impartial and independent body to investigate miscarriages of justice. That certainly does not exist now to the satisfaction of the general public. As far back as 1982, the Home Affairs Select Committee report and Justice—an eminent and experienced body of which I am a humble member—reported in that vein. The problem simply will not go away and there is increasing disquiet about our existing procedures.
I am not wedded to the exact form of words proposed by my hon. Friend, but he is right in principle. There is a need for a new body able to take a wider view and, where necessary, to take the case apart. If we had permanent machinery of that sort, there would be no need for ad hoc inquiries. Indeed, the establishment of ad hoc inquiries makes the case for some sort of body and the case for making it permanent is made out by the increasing concern about a whole spate of cases.
As a practitioner who from time to time finds himself before the Court of Appeal, I want to make it clear that the Court of Appeal does an effective and satisfactory job for the run-of-the-mill case. I say that in no patronising way. One is not always pleased with the results. That is another matter and may involve a subjective rather than an objective view. It is not the independence of the Court of Appeal that is the cardinal point; it is the type of remit that custom, practice and legislation give it. After all, it is a creature of statute. That is the heart of the problem.
9 pm
The cases considered by the Secretary of State and the investigative machinery at his disposal frequently cause concern. My hon. Friend has gone to some lengths to describe that machinery. I accept that serious mistakes can and do happen. I fear that even in future, with the most ideal, new radical machinery, mistakes will happen. Our job is to limit the chances of mistakes happening and to have machinery to correct them as speedily as possible. The convention is that, short of a political earthquake coupled with some evidence, nothing is done. It is an indictment of the present system that it needs a sustained campaign by the great and the good for action to be taken.
My hon. Friend is proposing an independent body which will be open in its inquisitions and will be the trigger for action by the Home Secretary. It is the sifting machinery, preliminary to a Sir John May inquiry, which is necessary. It is adumbrated here that there could well be a full hearing, presumably by the body itself. I am not sure whether that is necessarily the right way to proceed, but we are trying to find the best solution.
One could go on at great length, but I shall not do so tonight. The problem will not go away. There is a need for new investigative machinery. Justice delayed is justice

denied. It is wrong that under present procedures decades must go by—a third or a half of a working life—before justice is done. That cannot be right.
In this age of new technology, with new tests and machinery every day, there is a lack of balance between what is available to the Crown prosecuting a case and what is available to the defence. An individual, certainly one on legal aid, cannot have all the resources necessary for scientific tests that sometimes border on the frontiers of knowledge. Government agencies exist to serve the people as a whole, not merely the organs of Government. Therefore, where appropriate, they should be available to assist and advise individuals who appear before the Queen's courts.
I certainly accept the principle, if not the words, of my hon. Friend's amendment. I am sure that we shall return to the matter again. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee suggested, once Sir John May has reported, it may be wise and prudent for the Select Committee to return to the subject again.

Sir John Farr: I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the cogent remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I do not think that I am a rarity on this side of the House, but I am certainly one among perhaps not all that many in the Conservative ranks who consider that a succession of miscarriages of justice have come to the forefront, even since the Criminal Justice Bill of 1988, in respect of which I tabled a new clause, was considered in Committee. We did not even imagine the horrendous outcome that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South suggested in relation to the Maguire and Guildford cases. I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman dreamed that his worst fears would be realised.
My interest, apart from that of any ordinary person, whether Conservative, Labour, Social Democrat or whatever, is to correct a miscarriage of justice. I firmly believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who was on the Select Committee, was right when he said that something had to be done. Unfortunately, his cogent remark was only an intervention. Had he been making a speech, I would probably have intervened and asked him why it had taken so long and eight years is a lifetime for people who have been wrongly imprisoned.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to my interest in the Birmingham Six, which may or may not be well known. I happened to be concerned about them, which may or may not be well known, because one or two of them are in Gartree prison in my constituency. When they first went in, they asked me to do a bit of photocopying for them because the prison rules in respect of the photocopier are strict. While I was photocopying their petition to Justice and other organisations, I became interested in their story. I did some investigation. Of course, about five or six years ago, there was a story in the Sunday papers about forensic tests that were said to be bogus. The Gries test was shown by some Sunday papers to be bogus. The Gries test was the forensic test that sent down the Birmingham Six, and they are still inside.
As an ordinary citizen, I am interested in miscarriages of justice. Anything must be better than the present arrangement. That is what I tried to say when I moved my new clause when the Criminal Justice Bill was considered in Committee a couple of years ago. That is why I am


pleased also to be associated with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South in the new clause. Let us hope that it will not be another few years before something is done.
I cannot see any reason—I never shall—why the findings of a Select Committee that was set up to deal with miscarriages of justice should be totally ignored by the House. At that time, my new clause was considered at 1 o'clock in the morning—hardly a key time of the day. This debate is an improvement on that. There was a unanimous recommendation by a Select Committee, many members of which are still in the House. It is just not good enough to forget it. I charge my right hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have great admiration, as I have for all of my Government lawyer friends, at least to have another look at the Select Committee's recommendations. If their recommendations are put into effect and the kind of miscarriage of justice that occurred in the case of the Birmingham Six is not allowed to happen again, we shall have done some good.
Many professional lawyers think that the layman is trying to bind their hands. We are trying to do nothing of the sort; we are leaving the legal system intact. In 1982, the Law Society was strongly in favour, as was the Criminal Bar Association, of an independent review body. Both said that it would be sensible to provide a little more expert advice to the Home Secretary, who has an impossible job. However brilliant one may be, it is impossible to be right all the time. An independent review body, based on the recommendations in the Select Committee's report, ought to be established soon. I have great pleasure in supporting the new clause.

Mr. Bermingham: I support the concept of a court of final appeal, although for none of the reasons given so far. I do not believe that it is constructive to look at past examples; one has to consider generalities. In too many instances the arguments advanced in support of a court of final referees have related to a particular case. That is unwise. Anyone who believes that a particular system is right on every occasion is wrong. Everyone makes mistakes. Anyone who practises either as a solicitor or as a barrister—I have practised as both—knows that he has made mistakes in the past. A mistake may be made by failing to call a witness. The significance of a tiny piece of scientific evidence may not be apparent at the time; one fails to realise its significance. Only later does scientific knowledge highlight the fact that there was more significance to that tiny piece of evidence than was thought at that time.
Judges, counsel, solicitors and witnesses are human and make mistakes. I do not intend to refer to the findings of the May inquiry, but it is so easy to look back 14, 15 or 20 years and be hypercritical of actions taken by human beings at that time. It is more productive to accept that people try to do their job, within the confines of the system, as well as they can but that they are constrained by the knowledge that exists at the time.
The problem with forensic evidence over the years has been the imbalance between the facilities available to the defence and the prosecution. Scientific services are Government services and people's services. They should therefore be available to everyone. However, there comes a time within our system when a feeling of partisanship is suspected. All lawyers are well advised to be aware of that danger. If one feels partisan about a particular incident, one may or may not inadvertently fail to disclose evidence,

particularly scientific evidence. One may also Fail to disclose other extraneous factors that in turn become crucial to the testing of the evidence.
If we are to have a court of final referral, which I hope one day we will, I hope that it will not be only for the great and the good. I have always worried about a simple case—a shop burglary 20 years ago. I was convinced at that time and I am to this day that the man convicted of it, on circumstantial, not confessional, evidence, was probably innocent. The problem is that he was given a six-month sentence which has long since been served. He had to serve that sentence and, more importantly, his career was ruined. He wanted to be a professional—it does not matter which profession—but it was no longer open to him.
9.15 pm
A court of final referral is as important to people like that as it is to those accused of major criminal offences or terrorist offences. We have to be equally wary of those cases.
The present system has stood the test of time. We may not always agree with the results we obtain in court—we would not be human if we did—but that does not mean that the system is wrong. I disagree with the attacks made upon the Court of Appeal because experience has shown that in 99·99 per cent. of cases the system is fair and right. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, the system is right.
I agree with our trial system. Mistakes will be made, but, by and large, it is right. We are not saying that the systems are wrong. Those of us who support a court of final referral merely accept the principle that mistakes can be made. Such a concept needs to be thought about carefully, even if it is not in the form suggested in the new clause. It needs to be established because the frontiers of knowledge are for ever extending and, in a just and good system, we have to be able to accept that we can make a mistake.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on his new clause and on having it selected. I tried to do that in Committee but was unsuccessful because I do not have his legal skills. It is important to discuss this general problem, as my hon. Friend did on Second Reading. I am speaking as a layman—a person passionately concerned about something that appears to be wrong, even rotten, in the state of justice. There is a general feeling that this is a major problem that we cannot deal with. Something has clearly gone wrong, but there seems to be no way out. We must find a way of dealing with it.
It is clear from the Guildford, the Maguire and the Birmingham cases that something has gone drastically wrong with justice. In the atmosphere of that time, it was clear that it would be difficult to get justice and to obtain independent, conscientious police work that was not aimed simply at getting a conviction.
The machinery of justice is not there to bend to such pressure; it is there to ensure that cases are treated fairly. That is the reason that there should be an adequate appeals procedure—so that, if a court has failed in the initial instance, for whatever reasons, the verdict can be looked at again objectively and proper redress provided. In the cases that I mentioned, it is clear that that opportunity did not exist.
We have to do something along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. I am alarmed at the way in which the Court of Appeal seems to feel it incumbent upon itself to back previous decisions, as if a challenge to such a decision and the methods by which it was taken is a challenge to justice itself and the rule of law. It believes that it is somehow defending the system against unjustified, unreasonable and unfair criticism. It does not examine the facts of the case, which is surely its responsibility. It is even more alarming to hear rumours that judges in the Court of Appeal continue to believe, despite all that has been said, that people are guilty. Such rumours are disconcerting.

Mr. Mullin: It is clear, and the Attorney-General may have heard it said, that several senior judges have gone round, as they have done in other cases, saying that the people convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings and the Maguire family, whose convictions have been quashed, were guilty but got off on a technicality. That is outrageous. It is completely false.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a long-standing convention that we do not reflect adversely on the courts or the judiciary. The hon. Gentleman is breaking that convention.

Mr. Mullin: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have made that point on several occasions without falling foul of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just because the Chair has been prepared to be tolerant, the hon. Gentleman should not take the opportunity to push that tolerance further.

Mr. Mullin: I accept that observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mitchell: If such attitudes have been voiced, they are absolutely wrong and show that justice was not available through that channel. If that is the case, it should arouse the strongest possible concern, as should any implication that if cases are sent back to the Court of Appeal, they are thrown out as a testimony to the virility of the Court of Appeal.
The second problem is the way in which the Court of Appeal seems to regard it as necessary to think itself into the mind of the jury at the original trial and say that, even if certain evidence had been presented at the trial, the jury would have come to its original conclusion. That is an impossible and wrong intellectual feat for the court to perform.
The real threat to justice is the feeling that it has not been done, the feeling that there is no way out or the impression that something that is wrong cannot be dealt with. That is more of a threat to justice than anything that I can imagine.
In its sixth report in 1981–82, the Home Affairs Select Committee, after a thorough inquiry, came to the firm conclusion that there should be a further means of redress along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. I quote with concern the evidence given to it by Sir David Napley, who told the Committee that he was unable to recall from his own experience
a single case where the Home Office has, as a result of its own investigations, felt able to recommend a pardon or any other recognition that a conviction was necessarily wrongful.

But he said that, on the other hand,
on a number of occasions (officials) have quite freely expressed to me their sense of disquiet about particular cases but have pointed out that since appellate courts either on appeal or on reference under Section 17 have refused to interfere with the verdict they felt unable themselves to intervene.
It is a self-reinforced system. That is why we need to cut in with a provision such as that in the new clause. It is apparent that under existing powers, where the Secretary of State refers cases to the Court of Appeal because of doubt about a conviction, the machinery does not work well. It appears that on occasions the Court of Appeal positively resents the exercise of that power. Rather than dealing with the reference in an open-minded fashion, it expresses its resentment in its finding. Therefore, we need an independent review.
I do not think that the Attorney-General will leap to the Box with a glad hosanna and say, "Yes, you are right, it has all been a terrible mistake, and we accept the new clause." I do not think that he will do as I want him to. He is concerned about the reputation and probity of British justice, and the respect for it, not only in this country but in Ireland, and the need to redress the obvious deficiencies that have occurred. If he recommends us to reject the new clause, he must say that the Government are concerned about the issue and that he is looking for a way of dealing with a problem that is detrimental to the interests of justice in this country.

The Attorney-General: I make no complaint that we have spent considerable time on a topic that it would be idle to deny is, at present, a source of much anxiety.
If I deal with the new clause in a way that applies more closely to our proceedings on Report than if we were discussing its content in a different context, I hope that I shall not be accused of wishing to dodge an important debate or playing into the long grass the considerations that have been properly and cogently expressed. I do not agree with all that has been said, as I shall summarily try to make clear. At this stage of the evening, when several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have given voice to their anxieties and their support for the thinking behind the new clause, it is appropriate for me, in reply, to deal with the matter quickly, and I propose to do so in the way that I have explained.
The Bill does not set out to alter the criminal court structure. To introduce a new clause such as this into the Bill, particularly at this stage, when it has not even been debated in Standing Committee, would be inappropriate. I do not believe that, with hand on heart, hon. Members are seriously suggesting that it can be.
The Home Secretary and I, following the investigation by the police into the Guildford Four's convictions and the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal in October 1989 to quash their convictions, appointed Sir John May to inquire into the circumstances leading to, and deriving from, those convictions. That inquiry had wide terms. It was also asked to examine the case of the Maguire family and their co-defendants.
The first public hearing began on 21 May, and on 11 July the Home Secretary announced to the House that the Maguire case would be referred to the Court of Appeal. That inquiry's terms of reference were deliberately made wide and the Government confidently expect that Sir John May's report will range widely. He has said that, among the matters that he intends to consider, is whether any changes are needed to the existing arrangements for considering allegations that


there have been miscarriages of justice. His interim report was published on 12 July and his final report will receive the most careful consideration.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) rightly distinguished between the function of the Court of Appeal in dealing with a reference to it under the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and the Home Secretary's function in making such a reference, and considering whether or not to make it. That is an important distinction to bear in mind, and it was not very evident in the speech made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
I do not want to be thought to be pre-empting the Government's consideration of whatever Sir John May will recommend. I repeat that I expect his report to range widely, but it would be quite wrong of me to say anything that showed any personal predilection for any recommendation that he may make—or against one.
9.30 pm
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to the judgment given by the Court of Appeal when dealing with the Birmingham Four's reference. He thought it right to call the judgment scandalous. That is unfortunate language. Any court can deal with the matter brought before it only on the basis of the evidence put before it. As the House knows, when the Home Secretary makes a reference, it must be treated under the legislation as a fresh appeal. There has been a tendency to criticise the Court of Appeal in this and other cases for not having dealt with the matter as it might have done had it been in possession of all the material that subsequently became available.
If, when dealing with one of these references, the Court of Appeal took into account material that had not been put before it in evidence, that would indeed be grounds for complaint, and loud complaints would be heard in this House—

Mr. Mullin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

The Attorney-General: I just want to complete this thought. When hon. Members speak, as many have tonight, about courts not owning up to mistakes, they must be clear in their mind what they are talking about. If they are speaking about what is subsequently revealed to have been an irregularity amounting to a miscarriage of justice, but one which has become apparent only by reason of the later disclosure of material that was not available to the court at the time, the court is not shown to have made a mistake.
The court has no investigative powers. Much has been done, no doubt unwittingly, to undermine confidence in the judiciary by people saying that it has not been willing to own up to mistakes, who offer in support of that proposition illustrations of the type that I have described. That should not be done.

Mr. Mullin: I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. My view—I think that it is shared widely—is that, from the moment the Balcombe street IRA unit was captured in 1976, everyone concerned in the prosecution knew that the wrong people had been convicted. That can easily be shown, and Sir John May may well come to that conclusion.
In the Birmingham case, what went wrong came to light only later, but that was five or six years ago, and by now it should be dawning on people in high places; it has certainly dawned on those of us who travel on buses.

The Attorney-General: The House will know that I certainly cannot comment on the facts of those cases, but I ask the House to bear in mind the functions that the House has conferred on the Home Secretary and on the Court of Appeal. Under section 17 of the 1968 Act, the Home Secretary has power to refer to the Court of Appeal the case of any person who has been convicted on indictment. Alternatively, he may in certain circumstances decide to recommend to Her Majesty the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, or he may grant a free pardon. Of course, that is not nearly as satisfactory to those who believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice, because if there has been such a miscarriage, they rightly look to the judicial system to correct it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not normally consider it right to intervene unless there was new evidence or some other consideration of substance, which had not been before the courts and which appeared to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon said that we needed a tribunal that would take a wider view. He did not identify that wider view, and I find it difficult to see how a view wider than that which the Court of Appeal is required to take can exist. On a reference, the Court of Appeal is required to ask itself whether there is a lurking doubt and whether the conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory. If there is a doubt, the court must act accordingly. It is difficult to see how we could take a wider view, unless we ask a tribunal to act upon material that is not put before it in the form of evidence. On an appeal there are no holds barred on evidence and fresh evidence can be put before the court.

Mr. John Morris: I sought to put forward as briefly as possible some of the sentiments expressed by Sir John May. On page 36 of his report he comments on the views of the Court of Appeal in that case and on the way in which, in Sir John's judgment, the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the judge's directions, to which I referred. The comments are contained in paragraph 10.1.19. Perhaps I unduly saved the House's time in not referring to them earlier.

The Attorney-General: The House has heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment, and we must leave the matter there.
The anxiety, the existence of which I have acknowledged, derives from cases that were heard about 15 years ago. Since that time, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been put in place and tape recording is almost universal. We also now have an independent prosecution service. Each of those innovations constitutes a significant safeguard against malpractice of the sort that can lead a court to be presented with inadequate or false evidence. We should bear those matters in mind when we think about the reliability of our criminal justice system.
The debate has given rise to some extremely interesting and properly brought forward views. It is not appropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle for such a major constitutional reform and it would not be appropriate to accept the new clause. I hope that the House will agree that the new clause should be rejected.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to hon. Members who have supported the new clause, and especially to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). The tone adopted by the Attorney-General in the debate was wholly different from that adopted by the Minister of State, Home Office when he replied to an identical clause two years ago. I propose to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 96.

Division No. 315]
 align="right">[9.39 pm


AYES


Barron, Kevin
Leighton, Ron


Bermingham, Gerald
Livsey, Richard


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McKelvey, William


Buckley, George J.
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dewar, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter L.


Farr, Sir John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fearn, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gordon, Mildred
Vaz, Keith


Haynes, Frank
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Chris Mullin and


Janner, Greville
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Burt, Alistair





Butler, Chris
Maclean, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cash, William
Mans, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mills, Iain


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mitchell, Sir David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Day, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steve


Favell, Tony
Patnick, Irvine


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forman, Nigel
Redwood, John


Forth, Eric
Rhodes James, Robert


Franks, Cecil
Riddick, Graham


Freeman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


French, Douglas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stern, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Sumberg, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ground, Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hague, William
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Thorne, Neil


Harris, David
Thurnham, Peter


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Trippier, David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Viggers, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Waller, Gary


Jack, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Widdecombe, Ann


Kirkhope, Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Knapman, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wood, Timothy


Knowles, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Lang, Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)



Lightbown, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. John M. Taylor and


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 24

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL ADMINISTRATION

'(1) There shall be a department of state to be known as the Department of Legal Administration answerable through a Minister or Ministers to the House of Commons.

(2) The department shall be responsible for

(a) the administration and organisation of courts and tribunals in England and Wales;
(b) the recruitment training and appointment of the magistracy and judiciary through a Judicial Appointments Commission;
(c) the provision of legal aid, legal services advice and representation;
(d) the supervision of the legal professions;
(e) the Law Commission and law reform; and
(f) such other matters as the House of Commons shall by resolution decide including such powers or duties hitherto conferred upon the Lord Chancellor other than duties of a judicial character.'.—[Mr. Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss new clause 26—Judicial Appointments Commission—

'(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Judicial Appointments Commission (The Commission).

(2) The Commission shall consist of a chair and not more than 20 other persons independent of politics and appointed by the Minister for Legal Administration.

(3) The Commission shall have the duty of advising the Minister for Legal Administration on the recruitment, training and appointment in England and Wales of magistrates, the judiciary and members of statutory tribunals.

(4) The Commission shall comply with the overriding principle that its work shall be directed to the fair, just and efficient administration of justice without partiality or prejudice.

(5) Subject to the overriding principle the Commission shall have regard to the needs to ensure—

(a) that appointees are equipped to interpret and apply the law fairly and efficiently;
(b) equal access to the law, and
(c) the appointees are representative of the community, socially aware and trained and equipped to perform the duties assigned to them.

(6) The Commission shall consult the designated judges and may consult other persons and bodies about the discharge of its duties.'.

Mr. Fraser: The two new clauses are different in substance, and I shall briefly describe their effect. New clause 24 would create a department of legal administration—what is called in many countries a Ministry of Justice. It would be answerable to the House of Commons, it would be amenable to the supervision and the investigation of a Select Committee, and it would answer to this House for what is the considerable current expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
New clause 26 would create a judicial appointments commission, the exact terms of which it sets out. Essentially, it would be concerned with the selection, training and appointment of judges, chairs of tribunals

and other judicial figures, including magistrates. The commission would have as its overriding principle that its work would have to be directed
to the fair, just and efficient administration of justice without partiality or prejudice.
The creation of a department of legal administration would bring the administration of the law—the spending on the administration of the courts—into the political arena to a much greater degree than at present. It would have a spending budget of £1 billion a year, including legal aid. By contrast, the setting up of a judicial appointments commission would take the appointment of the judiciary out of the political arena and, for the first time, make it entirely consistent with the constitutional principle that the appointment of the judiciary should be entirely free of political control.
I wish to go into a little more detail about the proposed department of legal administration. First, its main function would be the spending of about £ 1 billion. The Lord Chancellor would cease to be the last of the big spenders in the House of Lords. It was perhaps justifiable to have a Minister in the other place at a time when the Lord Chancellor's Department spent little money and when there was no legal aid scheme. Now, with expenditure of £1 billion a year, the Minister should be accountable to the House of Commons.
Secondly, a department of legal administration would allow criticism of the administration of the courts, but not the exercise of judicial judgment and discretion. The matter would be in the centre of the political arena rather than tucked away in a corner of the unelected Chamber. Such a department would also be responsible to this House for the operation of the legal aid scheme and its coverage. Eligibility for that scheme has slipped from 90 per cent. of cases to 70 per cent. and is still falling. That matter ought to be the subject of much greater scrutiny by this House, including by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
The Attorney-General may say that the Government are spending more and more money on legal aid. Although that is true, the reason is the crime epidemic that has become evident since the present Government came to power. From the figures it is clear that a high proportion of that expense is accounted for by criminal defence costs. Claiming credit for an expansion of the legal aid service by quoting expenditure figures is like saying, in the event of a plague, that the national health service is doing better only because it is spending more on combating it.
The legal aid scheme should be exposed to much more debate, criticism and accountability in this House. There should also be much public discussion and constructive criticism of the work of the Crown prosecution service. I have always made it clear that we are strong supporters of the concept of the CPS, but we want it to operate efficiently. Although we are concerned about the defence of liberty, civil rights, and the ability of the individual to receive a fair trial, the victims of crime have rights. If prosecutions are handled incompetently and are not given sufficient resources, and if those guilty of crimes escape because of the prosecution's inefficiency, that too is wrong. The quality and rewards of the CPS should also be debated more thoroughly in this House.
A department of legal administration could concern itself with law reform. I would prefer to see many more people asking questions of this House about why we retain stupid, unfair or outdated laws and do not go about


reforming them more thoroughly and quickly. I can think of whole areas of law in urgent need of reform, which would occur if more pressure were exerted on this House.

The Attorney-General: Such as in respect of the Shops Act 1950.

Mr. Fraser: I shall refer in a moment to controversial issues and the part that a department of justice or a department of legal administration could play in them.
I can think of a number of areas where law reform should proceed more quickly. One example is the liability of an original lessee. It is ridiculous that someone who signed a lease 50 years ago as the original lessee should still be liable. It is wrong also that those having leasehold flats have not been given a system of enfranchisement and of commonhold ownership consistent with present day ownership. When I was Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, it struck me as ridiculous that one had to use a private Member's Bill on a Friday to push through a reform such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which I, with my former hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, was able to put on the statute book. It seems silly that we should not have a more vigorous system of law reform run by a department of legal administration answerable to this House.
The Attorney-General referred to the Shops Act 1950. There are a number of outdated items of legislation on the statute book, and many others proposed that are highly controversial. A department of legal administration should not shrink from making it possible for the House to reach decisions about them.

The Attorney-General: But it does.

Mr. Fraser: It was right for the Leader of the House recently to make it possible for the House to reach decisions about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on an issue about which the law clearly needed reform. The Leader of the House allowed the House to reach a conclusion. That should happen more often. I hope that it will be possible to expedite the passage of law reform legislation through the House by the combined use of a Select Committee and a Standing Committee as happens at the moment with consolidation legislation.
I would like to see Ministers answerable in the House for the efficient administration of the courts as well as for the efficient and wide availability of legal aid. I want to see a department which will develop a comprehensive—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed. until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Mr. Fraser: I want to see a department which will develop a comprehensive coverage of advice and representation across the nation, not just including the legal professions, but encompassing advice agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux, which would assist a network of law centres supported by central and local government. It should be sufficient to meet the needs of the population and be assured of independence. I would like

to see a coverage of representation and assistance for tribunals no matter what their nature. We want to develop a system of advice and representation, both lay and professional, which ensures that no man or woman's rights are diminished or abrogated because of a lack of advice, help or representation.
Those matters should be given more attention by the House. A department of legal administration could be examined critically and constructively. There is no reason why those matters should not be the subject of more political debate and controversy in the House. The administration of justice should not be remote or mysterious. We want to bring the large amount of spending and other important matters concerning the administration of justice into the House under a prime department for the first time.
I want now in contrast to consider the establishment of a judicial appointments commission. That would remove political control and the exclusive nominal control of appointments from the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister, who are both Cabinet members. I do not want to criticise the way in which the present Lord Chancellor has conducted his duties as he is responsible for the appointment of the judiciary. I have great admiration for the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the way in which it assembles information and gathers intelligence to make judicial appointments.
However, I am sure that it is wrong that such a duty should be undertaken by a political Minister. The number of appointments is now so much greater than when the system was traditionally under the control of the Lord Chancellor. For example, there are 920 judicial appointments, excluding appeal and High Court judges, and there are thousands of magistrates. The overriding principle would be the independent and efficient administration of justice. However, there are other targets and criteria which we could give to a judicial appointments commission which it could conduct in a way that was free from political control.
We could ensure that judges were more representative of the communities that they served. Judges are not masters of the community; they are its servants. I know that the Lord Chancellor has taken seriously the importance of the appointment of women, who I am reminded from time to time are not a minority, but the majority in our society. I know that he also takes seriously the appointment of black people and other representatives of ethnic minorities in this country. However, if we had a judicial appointments commission it would be possible to be more expansive and imaginative and to invite more ideas about the way in which we could make the judiciary and the bench more representative of the population they serve.
Despite the good faith and good intentions of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the judiciary simply does not reflect the composition of the country. There are 408 circuit judges presiding over Crown courts and county courts, but only 17 of them are women. There are 216 county court registrars, of whom only four are women. There are 49 stipendiary magistrates, of whom eight are women, a rather better figure. Industrial tribunals deal with employment cases and sexual and racial discrimination. Of 64 full-time chairs of industrial tribunals, only six are women. There is only one woman out of 16 social


security commissioners, and there is only one woman out of 14 chairs of social security appeal tribunals. Much though we may try, it is simply not good enough.
We need a commission which is set targets and criteria so that appointments to the judiciary and chairs of tribunals reflect the community they serve, including women and other groups.
We should encourage a career structure in the judiciary where it is not always possible for someone with 10 years' experience in the courts to go straight to being a judge. Some people may find it much more difficult to achieve a judicial post because of their career patterns and experience. There is no reason why someone should not be appointed chair of a tribunal and, if they prove themselves to be good after serving for a short time in that capacity, to move to a higher or different judicial appointment so that a career pattern would be created within the judiciary in addition to the traditional pattern of serving as an advocate and then being appointed, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently, as a judge.
Such a commission would encourage our judges to be more accountable and discuss more constructively the nature of their work and the way in which they approach it. Having removed judicial appointments from political control, it might be easier to rebuke and, if necessary, dismiss judges. I know that we are not here to criticise individual judges, but there is much concern about judges who say that women are liable to be raped if they walk home alone on a dark night. There have been examples of judges who appear to be out of tune with the needs and views of the community that they serve. A commission removed from political control would be freer to deal with such matters.
We want a judicial appointments commission which is transparent in its operations. I am not suggesting that confidential information that affects whether someone should be appointed should be entirely open and that people should have to disclose the sources of that information, but the way in which the system works has to be transparent. Those who seek an appointment need to know what has been said about them and to be given an opportunity to counter any unfavourable statements that might damage their possible career in the judiciary. We want a system that is transparent and imaginative.
One of the proposals involves a more vigorous political debate about the administration of the law, the efficient conduct of our courts, the expenditure of money and the extent of legal aid. We want one vigorous political department dealing with the administration and reform of the law. In contrast, we want another body that is independent of politics, that is transparent and that perhaps will approach more imaginatively the task of recruiting, training and appointing judges. Both propositions are needed, and I hope that they will be supported.

Mr. Temple-Morris: It is one of the ironies of a Report stage such as this when we come under pressure of time that a whole galaxy of worthy and interesting subjects comes up for discussion. It is tempting to let loose, particularly about a ministry of justice or a department of legal administration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be relieved to know that I shall resist that temptation and speak briefly, perhaps wearing my Law Society hat, to register a genuine anxiety about the new clause 26 which deals with a judicial appointments commission.
Our judicial appointments system is historic, thorough and experienced, but it is perhaps one of the most closed and charmed systems in the land. We touched on that in Committee. I do not criticise the system as such, but its nature does not exactly charm most solicitors. Indeed, they feel somewhat outside the system of selection at the very time when they are penetrating the higher courts. taking on judicial appointments and hoping to take over more of them. That is a serious concern.
I have definite sympathy with new clause 26, as does the Law Society, and I hope for some suitably reassuring words from my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Bermingham: I wish to raise one matter on new clause 24. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) referred to the rights of the victim. I have some questions for the Attorney-General.
Why will the Legal Aid Board not grant the cost of experts in many defence cases of serious crime? That is a serious matter. For example, in a car ringing case, the Crown had experts in engineering and motor sciences. The defence asked for an engineering expert because the Crown's evidence was to be challenged, but the request was refused. Is that justice?
Why has a senior judge found it necessary to write to the Director General of Public Prosecutions with anxieties about the competence of counsel in certain prosecutions in the south-eastern circuit? Why has a certain criminal court judge written to a senior member of the Bar—I am prepared to supply his name to the Attorney-General—about exactly the same question? Why is there a general belief that grade 3 barristers are not being briefed and grade 3 work is being sent to grade 2 barristers? Could it be that the Crown prosecution service is being starved of funds and therefore cannot brief competently?
Is that why briefs on rape cases, which must be tried in the central criminal courts, are being touted around the Temple in an attempt to find a prosecuting barrister? Will that bring justice to the rape victim who has a right for her case, which is the Crown's case, to be put properly in our courts? Could it just be that the Treasury purse strings are operating in such a way as to constrain and restrict the right of the Crown prosecution service to brief the most competent and best counsel? Is it right that a considerable number of the best and most competent senior juniors seem to be ceasing to do prosecution work? Is that in the interests of society?
The Attorney-General will say that I should ask the Minister responsible, but who, bar the Attorney-General, is responsible and answerable to us? If we had a ministry of justice and a Select Committee to oversee those matters, the Select Committee could call witnesses and ask questions. I have been a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee for some years. We can touch upon certain little matters because our brief carries us that far, but we cannot touch on the Lord Chancellor's Department, and we cannot touch on other matters to do with legal aid.
We can touch, however, as we did recently—although I declared an interest and did not take part in the inquiry—on the Crown prosecution service. Would it not be wiser if all the spending Departments were under one Ministry, with a Minister answerable at the Dispatch Box, fortnight in and fortnight out, not just for 15 minutes at Attorney-General's Question Time but for perhaps an hour, as many other Ministers are?
These matters are of considerable importance to men and women in the street. Whether we defend them properly or prosecute them properly is a matter of concern to society. The victim and the defendant have interests, and the Treasury's cold hand seems to be causing damage to both.

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said that he was concerned that so many new and radical ideas that have been put forward not just by the Government but by the Opposition are being considered so late at night and in such a brief time. He was quite right. That is why, at the start of the proceedings, I raised a point of order about the allocated time preventing hon. Members from carefully considering the many amendments to the extent that we would like.
This new clause places on record the cornerstone of the Labour party's policy on legal affairs. I am not particularly friendly towards the name "Department of Legal Administration". It sounds a bit Jim Hackerish. I have raised this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). What's in a name? I am sure that we could make progress in terms of what we call our ministry of justice because of the important role that it will play in the administration of policy when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon takes over as the Secretary of State for justice or legal administration and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) takes over as his deputy. It will mean a radical departure in legal administration.
Hon. Members have heard much praise for the Lord Chancellor in respect of this and other Bills which have been initiated by him. I must admit that I have never seen the Lord Chancellor in the other place. Marvellous tablets of stone come down from the other place to be discussed in this place. They then go back amended—if one can amend tablets of stone—and we never get the chance to question the Lord Chancellor or ask him to tell the House his thinking behind certain aspects of policy.
One of the most important aspects of the creation of a department of legal administration is the presence in the House of a Minister accountable to Parliament and responsible for a whole Government Department which is of major concern to ordinary citizens. There is no point in giving rights to people, either nationally or locally, if those rights cannot be enforced properly. With this new clause, we seek to ensure that a Minister will be responsible for those aspects of policy and can be questioned.
I agree with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who said that 15 minutes of questioning every three weeks is not enough. We should like to see the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General much more often in the House. I am disappointed when I have to read about developments such as the initiation of the family hearing centres in newspapers and in press releases from the Lord Chancellor. I should much prefer the Attorney-General to come before the House and make such statements as a Minister with responsibility for a whole Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South is the most senior member of the Select Committee on Home

Affairs, on which I serve. He is right when he says that that Committee does not have time to ensure that the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department is scrutinised. I know what the Attorney-General will say. He will say that a major inquiry has been held into the Crown prosecution service. I believe that that was the first major inquiry into the workings of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
There are many other policy aspects that the Select Committee has not dealt with. I should like an inquiry to be held into the administration of the legal aid fund. We have been unable to hold such an inquiry. I should like an inquiry into the administration of justice in civil cases, but the Select Committee has not had time to do that. I should like an inquiry to be held into judicial appointments. It cannot be done, because the Select Committee does not have sufficient time in which to hold such an inquiry. Because of the number of inquiries that the Select Committee is to undertake in the next year, there will be insufficient time to inquire into even one part of the operation of the Lord Chancellor's Department. That is why a Department with a Minister responsible to the House of Commons is needed. A Select Committee which could carefully scrutinise the work of that Department is also needed.
We should also like the Attorney-General to tell us more about the Crown prosecution service. When a Minister is made responsible to the House of Commons, we hope that detailed debates will be held into the operation of the Crown prosecution service. Despite the fact that a major inquiry has been held into the Crown prosecution service, it has been debated in this place only once. When I was fortunate enough to win first place in the ballot for Adjournment debates, I decided that we should debate the Crown prosecution service. That was the first occasion on which the Attorney-General came to the House and admitted that the operation of the Crown prosecution service was causing problems.
I went to Nottingham a couple of weeks ago to address the annual general meeting of the Law Centres Federation. I hope that one of the first tasks of the new secretary of state for justice, or minister with responsibility for the department of legal administration will be to ensure that there is a network of law centres throughout the country. It has long been the Labour party's policy to establish a law centres network. Certain parts of the country—Croydon is one—have no ready access to law centres.
I worked for three years in a law centre in Leicester. There is no better way for citizens to obtain quick, efficient and cheap advice than from law centres. We should consider the possibility of creating a network of law centres that makes use of the services of those who work in citizens advice bureaux. I hope that, when my right hon. and hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) starts his first day as Minister with responsibility for these matters, he will announce to the House the creation of a network that we have talked about for 11 years but that we have had no chance to initiate.
I strongly support the new clause and I hope very much that the Attorney-General will support it too. If he does, he will have the privilege of being the first Minister in the history of Parliament to be totally responsible for a Government Department of legal administration. We shall be happy to give him that privilege, because the principle is so important.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak to the new clause which stands in my name. I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for taking the two principles that I tried to embody in amendments that I tabled in Committee and turning them into something much more effective than I was capable of doing. The two new clauses embody two important principles to which I am strongly attached.
The first is a ministry of justice. I make no apology for discussing such principles this late at night. It is not our fault that we are forced to debate major issues such as this at the tail end—one might say the fag end—of the Session and late at night. It is the fault of the Government's casual DIY approach to the Bill. They have rushed in long, complicated clauses on Report after the Bill has passed through the House of Lords and Committee. They did so to pre-empt the time necessary to discuss the fundamental principles behind the new clause.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) I prefer to call the ministry of justice the department of justice, because the present title is somewhat cumbersome. A ministry of justice is a vital principle. 1 have always been an advocate of relieving the Lord Chancellor of certain functions. I yield to none in my admiration for the present Lord Chancellor. He is a breath of fresh air, vigour and reform, partly because he comes from the different and somewhat better legal tradition in Scotland. He has come to the job with clear, fresh eyes and a vigour of which the conservative profession in England was not capable.
It has always seemed to me that the tripartite role could best be dealt with by removing the Lord Chancellor's function as a judge and employing a benign and avuncular actor to preside over the deliberations in another place. Robert Morley springs instantly to mind, or perhaps Lord Hailsham could make a comeback in his successful career of presiding over another place. I would transfer the functions specified in new clause 24 to a proper ministry of justice of the kind that every civilised country has and which we, too, should have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East has made the case for the new clause eloquently and articulately. I shall not repeat it. It is important that the principles embodied in the new clause are discussed in the House. There is no doubt that, if we had had a ministry of justice, we could have achieved reforms in the judicial system, reforms in the appointment of judges and law reforms such as that which my hon. Friend mentioned, and which I too would like to see, to provide for a system of law shops. In such centres justice could be provided quickly and effectively to people who came in off the street. The awe, mystique and expense of justice would be removed. If we had had a ministry of justice, we as politicians accountable to the people would have seen the inadequacies of the system and pressed for change. Only that insulation from pressure has made the system of justice so inaccountable.
The judicial system is at the end of the day a service industry that must serve the purposes of the people. For that, the voice of the people must be influential. It must be heard. The system must be accountable to the representatives of the people in those important functions and provisions. That is the basic principle. If the system was accountable to the House we would have a better and more adequate system.
New clause 26 would create a judicial appointment commission. It deals with the basic question of the nature of judges. I emphasise two points. First, we need proper and adequate training to create a genuinely trained professional body of judges such as exists in the rather different system in France. The judge is the last bastion of the English amateur tradition which has been inadequate in so many respects. If we had a proper system of training provided by the judicial appointments commission proposed in the new clause, and a staff college for judges, we would have a more effective system of justice. A more representative body of judges would be achieved by that method.
It is interesting that the incoming president of the Law Society has made one of his aims for the year to secure a more representative body of judges—a wider range of appointments. He wants to see solicitors appointed. We have heard comments from many sources about the unrepresentative nature of the bench. Sir David Napley, a former president of the Law Society, said:
The appointment of judges has long been in need of radical overhaul. It's too tied up with the old boy network.
He said that it is clear that the appointment of judges
should be subject to independent scrutiny.
I echo those comments. We have an unrepresentative body of judges which needs to be made more representative. It needs to be made professional by a judicial appointments committee.
10.30 pm
The people who have the greatest control over the appointment of judges seem to be incumbent judges. Every new High Court appointment is preceded by a meeting between the Lord Chancellor and the heads of divisions. They exercise a negative veto. All sorts of reports and complaints can be brought to bear against people put forward. The system is controlled not by politicians but by the incumbents. That means that it is not responsive to social developments in our society. It is a self-reinforcing system. The judges, seeing themselves as the fount of wisdom, like to see new judges as chaps like themselves. That is one of the main road blocks on the way to reform.
There can be no argument about the unrepresentative nature of judges. A report of research by Lord Gifford published in 1986 says:
judges are from a narrow social background, almost all white, male, upper middle-class, from an independent school and Oxbridge.
The Labour research department did a study of 465 judges, which was published in January 1987. It said tha more than one in three of them is past the state retirement age of 65. Age does not necessarily bring wisdom, although in my own case it does. It has been said of others that they immature with age, but I do not think that that can be said of me. Age is no automatic guarantee of wisdom. It is open to question whether we are keeping judges on for too long in the present structure.
Only 17 of the 465 judges were women and there was only one black judge, although there were four judges of white South African extraction. The report looked at all the categories of judges and proved that the exclusive nature exists at all levels of the system.
I tabled some questions to the Attorney-General a couple of weeks ago. They yielded the information that there are 83 High Court judges, of whom 27·7 per cent. are aged between 60 and 69 and 10 to 12 per cent. between 70


and 75. They are obviously youthful and vigorous and full of new ideas, ready to respond to the challenges of change and adjust to the new society in which we live.
The second question to the Attorney-General yielded the information that 77 per cent. of the 83 High Court judges went to schools listed in the Independent Schools Yearbook. That means that they went to private schools. Some 80 of them, 96 per cent., went to university, and 84 per cent. of them went to either Oxford or Cambridge. They were all chaps drawn from that narrow, class background and, in almost every case, from the Bar, which is unrepresentative and, given the pattern of entry to it, will remain so. It is almost essential to have either a working wife or private wealth to persevere through the system.

Mr. Bermingham: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not quite sure what help my hon. Friend had, but he certainly did not have a bursary while working part-time in another job. It is necessary to come from a fairly substantial background. That means that judges represent a class, a restrictive range—

Mr. Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I was merely making a joke.
That narrow range means that they are prejudiced because the judges are not representative of the wide range of views in a pluralistic society as they should be because they are dealing with that society's problems. It is partly that narrow, restrictive range and backgroud that gives judges their attitude and makes them see themselves not as protecters of the liberty of the subject or guarantors of the rights of people who want to be empowered in our society, but as the defenders of the Executive. They see themselves as lions under the throne, rather than defenders of rights.
That is a tragedy to those of us who would like to see some definition of rights. I was one of three Labour Members who voted for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law. Now, 230 Labour Members believe in it because it has become party policy, but we three were a little advanced because we did so before that. But it is difficult to justify that incorporation given that we cannot trust the judges because they come from such a narrow range and have such a restricted set of attitudes.
I was fascinated to read in a recent book by Professor Keith Ewing, "Freedom Under Thatcher", arguments that point to the conclusion that it is difficult to have a Bill of Rights in this country when we have such a narrow, unrepresentative range of judges with such prejudiced attitudes. It makes the point that, had Robert Bork been proposed for high judicial office in this country, as he was in the United States, he would have been appointed. There would have been no criticism, no review, no possible contest in the House of Commons. We have no accountability to reveal the weaknesses or attitudes of such people.
The book goes on to argue that we have a narrow, unrepresentative range of people, adjudicating on issues such as a woman's right to abortion. Such wide social issues are determined by a group of men, appointed from the same background. Judges are given the power to disrupt decisions and adjustments made by the processes of politics, which are those of persuasion, compromise and agreement. From their restricted background the judges

blunder into difficult ethical, social and political matters which are then subject to the prejudices of that narrow range of people.
It is interesting that so many of the legislative developments, the restrictions of freedom, which have gone on under this Government, were anticipated by judicial development before Parliament passed the legislation to consolidate them—for example, the police power to regulate public assemblies in the Public Order Act 1986. Many of the restrictions on political freedom that have taken place in the 1980s have not been the result of legislation, but judge-made initiatives, authorising the extension of Executive power. The judges anticipated and sanctified the restrictions on freedom of movement, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly because they come from such a narrow range of backgrounds.
I should like to quote the remarks on social issues of one or two of this ancient, white, unrepresentative group of judges. Judge Raymond Dean told a rape trial jury:
When a woman says no. she doesn't always mean it.
Judge Bertrand Richards, of Lancing college and Oxford, told a woman who had been raped that she was guilty—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying quite a long way from the new clauses, and his comments are not relevant to what we are debating. I should be glad if he would return to the points in the new clauses.

Mr. Mitchell: I should have thought it perfectly legitimate to quote the judges to illustrate the unrepresentative composition of the bench of judges, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I shall move on.
We propose a way of ensuring that the judges are more representative, that they are trained to do the job, and that they view themselves not as lions under the throne defending the Executive but as defenders of the rights of the people. The judicial appointments commission proposed in the new clause is rather like the sort of civil service commission which has given us such a high quality of civil servants. Why should not the judges be subjected to that sort of commission's search for excellence?
I commend those points to the House as major advances.

The Attorney-General: It is characteristic of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that, having indulged himself in a recitation of a well-known operatic style of denunciation of the judges, he should now go off to talk to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). Nevertheless, I invite him to deal with the facts.
The hon. Gentleman regaled us with a long catalogue of supposed illustrations of the bias of the judiciary towards the Executive. I cannot quote him verbatim because he spoke at such length and with such rapidity, but in essence he said that the judges are on the side of the Executive and have never done anything to protect the liberty of the subject.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to think about the emergence of judicial review, of which I do not doubt he has heard. Judicial review was not the creation of this House—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will not leave the Chamber now, because I want him, if he will be good enough to do so, to pay attention. Judicial review was not the creation, as I say, of Parliament; it has been the creation of the judges over the


past 25 years. It has been a proper curb on the exercise of power by the Executive. Is not it strange that this socially privileged, biased and protected judiciary should have set about finding a means with which to protect the individual against the Executive and excessive use of power? That is something of an anomaly, given the pattern with which the hon. Gentleman regaled us.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby must think about this: judicial review is the one way, in the absence of a written constitution, in which the courts can acquire jurisdiction over the use of Executive power. That blows the whole of the hon. Gentleman's thesis out of the water—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

The Attorney-General: I shall not. It is 10.45 pm, and we have already listened to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Attorney-General has patronised my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He is making highly personal comments, yet refuses to give way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order for me? I do not think that there is one.

The Attorney-General: For about half an hour the hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke on a fairly familiar theme. The two new clauses contain much of obvious importance. For example, the importance of the selection of the judiciary is self-evident. We should approach the matter upon the basis of a sensible appreciation of what judges do and their record. Those of us who know the people who became judges in the time that we have been in the profession, know that is absurd to say that there is some sort of bias towards a social background of one kind or another. The same applies to those who are called to the Bar or who become solicitors.
10.45 pm
There is a disproportionate number of women judges, but one must remember that judges are appointed from the legal profession and the Bill seeks to broaden the pool from which the judiciary can in future be recruited. The Government are entitled to credit for that. Because of the demands imposed by practice at the Bar, it is harder for women than for men to make a go of the Bar. We hope that the position is improving. I think that I am right in saying that at present more than 50 per cent. of students admitted to the Inns of Court are women.
It is extremely important for the judiciary to be representative, and the Lord Chancellor has taken substantial steps to see that numerically and in other ways the judiciary becomes more representative of the community.
New clause 26 deals with the appointment of a judicial appointments commission. The Lord Chancellor's practice, which has been followed by all his recent predecessors, is to take full and careful advice. That means wide and continuing consultation with the judiciary and the leaders of the profession. Much work has been carried out by his Department to identify the best candidates. It is wrong to say that the Lord Chancellor is not responsible and not answerable. He is answerable to the House of

Lords and, by reason of our arrangements, I am answerable to the House of Commons for the Lord Chancellor's business.
If there were a series of bad appointments, the Lord Chancellor would be called to answer for that, and so would I. It is a mistake to suggest that, per se, a commission is likely to be better at achieving the results that we all want than the Lord Chancellor, who uses the machinery at his disposal, and consultation. In the past 10 years, the system has been greatly improved. There is no secrecy about it, and the Lord Chancellor's predecessor published a book entitled "Judicial Appointments", which brought matters into the open. Consultation is now wider than it has ever been and thought is continually being given to the best methods of gaining information on possible black, women and solicitor candidates. A two-year experimental initiative has been set up in limited parts of the country to identify solicitor candidates for part-time judicial appointments. Much more is being done.
It is satisfactory that an increasing number of black and women barristers are progressing successfully at the Bar. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke about judicial training, which is important. I do not go along with his comparison with the French judiciary. That would require much more research than the hon. Gentleman has been able to give it. The Judicial Studies Board is worthy of his attention, as is the work that is put in nowadays to training the judiciary at every level, rather than just after judges are appointed. Great progress has been made in that regard.
New clause 24 would create a department of legal administration, answerable through a Minister or Ministers to the House of Commons. Although it is proper for hon. Members to put forward the arguments that they have made tonight, it is not a practical proposition to incorporate into the Bill, without even discussion in Committee, such a major constitutional change. The clause would make a Minister in the House of Commons responsible for administration of the courts, appointment of the judiciary, legal services and most of the other functions that at the moment fall to the Lord Chancellor and his Department. That is undesirable.
I feel that there is great merit in having the Lord Chancellor sitting in the House of Lords, as he is thereby removed from the full force of party politics. That helps to protect and maintain more effectively the independence of the judiciary. The Lord Chancellor remains accountable to Parliament as a whole for the way in which he carries out his ministerial duties, in the same way as those Secretaries of State who have been Members of the other place have been. The Law Officers answer for the Lord Chancellor in the Commons. I do not know whether the House considers that satisfactory, but it gives the Treasury value for money.
The new clause would also establish a statutory judicial appointments commission. That proposal was considered by the Government, and rejected as not offering the same advantages as the present system. It also suggests that the Lord Chancellor should be responsible for supervision of the legal profession. He has a general responsibility for the health of the legal and judicial systems, but it is no part of the Bill to give him the task of supervising the legal profession directly. That would provide the means for unacceptable interference by the Government in the affairs of the independent and self-governing professions. Those are major disadvantages.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South asked four factual questions, of which the first was: why will not the Legal Aid Board grant the costs of experts in criminal cases? That is a good question to put to the board, which is independent. I am prepared to answer for anything in the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, provided that the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to write to me about it, and give me particulars.
The hon. Gentleman's second question was: why has a senior judge had to write about the competence of prosecuting counsel? If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about that and to give me the particulars, he knows that I shall deal with it. The next two questions were: why is grade 2 work being given to grade 3 people, and is it because of shortage of funds in the CPS? Why are rape prosecutions being hawked around the Temple, and is it because the fees are not enough? Under our present arrangements, all those questions can be put to me, provided that the hon. Gentleman raises them, and I will answer them, as he knows. It does not need the paraphernalia of a department of legal administration to be set up to get somebody to answer such practical questions here in the House.
I have enjoyed listening to the arguments. The horse has been trotted out, although not to a crowded grandstand. I understand that it represents the Labour party's policy in those matters, but I must invite the House to reject the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN COURTS

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 36, after 'any' insert 'judge, district judge or'.

The amendment clarifies an unintended obscurity in the powers of judicial officers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

COSTS

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 7, line 16, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.

No. 14, in page 7, line 22, at end insert—
'(5A) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1), the court may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules of court.
(5B) In subsection (5A), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or
(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

No. 15, in page 8, line 4, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.

No. 16, in page 8, line 7, at end insert—
'(2) In section 52 of that Act (costs in Crown Court) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—

(2A) Subsection (5A) of section 51 applies in relation to any civil proceedings in the Crown Court as it applies in relation to any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) of that section".'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 5

WITNESS STATEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 8, line 12, eave out 'lead' and insert 'adduce'.

No. 18, in page 8, line 17, leave out 'leading' and insert 'adducing'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 9

REPRESENTATION IN CERTAIN COUNTY COURT CASES

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in page 9, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 10.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 104, 106, 109, 113 to 115, 117 to 122 and 124 to 127.

The Attorney-General: These are drafting amendments consequential upon the introduction of the categories of authorised advocates and authorised litigators.

Mr. Alex Carlile: My concern and my regret is the passing of the term "barrister" from a term of definition to merely one of art. For many centuries now there have been barristers in this country and the degree of barrister has been a qualification, when some years' experience have been added to it, for certain types of office, including judicial office. Many of us here, including myself and including the Law Officers, are proud to be barristers and to hold that degree.
In amendments Nos. 114 and 118 we see two of the many examples—there will be many more to come in other legislation—of the disappearance of the term "barrister" from our statutory law.
Amendment No. 114 goes further than merely the removal of a term or definition. It deals with the Crown prosecution service and substitutes for the words
who is a barrister or solicitor
the words
who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).
That involves the potential dilution of standards; the sacrifice of useful experience and qualification for no apparently good purpose.
Under the amendment, instead of the Crown prosecutor in question being a barrister or solicitor, that person could be anyone with full rights of audience in the magistrates court. So we are going down a standard, from someone with rights of audience in the Crown court to anyone with full rights of audience in the magistrates court. I wonder, first, why we have to do away with the definition of barrister and, secondly, why we have to put up with the potential dilution of standards in that way.
Amendment No. 118 deals with the important Supreme Court rule committee. As the Attorney-General knows, by virtue of clause 7 the rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal can be curtailed by the Supreme Court rule committee. Up to now it has been necessary to have on that committee two barristers and two solicitors, ensuring that the committee always has upon it a reasonable


representation of people experienced in the use of the courts, the High Court in particular, both at the preparation stage and at the advocacy stage.
Amendment No. 118 will substitute a provision which could mean that there would be no barristers on the Supreme Court rule committee. That raises the potential of a committee dealing with important matters which could lack those very people who have the greatest and most direct experience of the matters which will be considered by the committee. I cannot see how that will help the administration of justice and I invite the Government to address those issues once again.

The Attorney-General: As always, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) makes a carefully prepared speech, and I shall naturally ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the Government take careful note of his points. I am sympathetic to what he said about the diminished use of the description of a barrister. The same could be said about the description of a solicitor. We are reluctant for that historic nomenclature to be less widely used and we have therefore considered the drafting of the amendments carefully and on a number of occasions. That consideration has made it clear that attempting to graft references to those who acquire new rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation on to the existing nomenclature would be less clear and considerably more cumbersome.
11 pm
The hon. and learned Gentleman noted and acknowledged that the nomenclature is employed, and that what matters is very much more the substance than the form. For example, clause 29 states:
On the coming into force of section 25—
(a) barristers shall be deemed to have been granted by the General Council of the Bar the rights of audience exercisable by barristers (in their capacity as such)".
Of course, the nomenclature is by no means abandoned.
I have responded with sympathy to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and I shall ensure that what he has said is properly taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

ADMINISTRATION ORDERS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 12, leave out line 28 and insert
'relates to the non-payment of charges incurred by the debtor after the making of the order or is unconnected with non-payment by him of any charges.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendment No. 20.

The Solicitor-General: These amendments arise from a matter that we debated in some detail in Committee. Amendment No. 19 simply provides that, in administration orders in bankruptcy, in so far as debts are incurred in relation to public utilities after the administration order has been made it will be possible for that public utility to withdraw supply. It is a matter wholly separate from the safeguards for consumers and relates to the sensible management of administration.
Amendment No. 20 deals only with the renaming of British Gas plc.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I raised the matter in Committee. I have discussed it with Mr. David Linton, who is the chief legal adviser to MANWEB. I am grateful to the Government, as are MANWEB and similar undertakings, for the care that has been taken in bringing forward the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 12, line 30, leave out 'the British Gas Corporation or'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 15

THE STATUTORY OBJECTIVE AND THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 15, line 38, leave out 'those' and insert 'the'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 98 to 101.

The Attorney-General: Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 100 are minor drafting amendments designed to remove an element of ambiguity that may have crept into clause 15 as a result of previous amendments.
On amendments Nos. 99 and 101, after the explanation that I gave in Committee of the purpose and effect of what we called the cab-rank rule in clause 15, concerns were expressed about the exact interpretation of subsection (3)(c). They arose in particular to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) about rules permitting an individual advocate to refuse a case on grounds relating to the amount of remuneration offered.
Having responded to the substance of the question, which I think correctly represented the Government's view, I later felt that I had compressed the necessary context of how the new provisions would affect the process by which decisions are taken under the Bill. The Government have reconsidered whether it is possible to express more clearly not only the obligations that subsection (3)(c)(iii) will require an authorised body to place on individual advocates, but the precise remit of the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges in approving or reviewing such rules. The amendments are designed to achieve that clarification.
I will begin by putting beyond doubt the Government's position. We could not and would not wish to impose a statutory obligation on a professional body as a whole or on individual advocates to undertake legal aid cases no matter what the level of remuneration payable. To do so would interfere with the careful balance struck in the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 dealing with remuneration.
The essence of those provisions is to empower the Lord Chancellor to set remuneration rates that are enough, but not more than enough, to attract lawyers to do the work. Clearly, compulsion is incompatible with that. Even more importantly, compulsion would imperil the freedom of the individual practitioner and also the legal profession itself.
The Government are also concerned not to restrict the freedom of individual advocates in a number of other circumstances. It must not be possible, for example, for particular litigators to choose to send particular advocates so great a volume of legal aid work that those advocates are unable to structure their practices in the way that they


want or to undertake other work. It is important that the legislation is couched in such a way as to allow professional bodies and the new framework the maximum flexibility possible to deal with such situations, consistent with the efficient and proper administration of justice.
There is no reason to accept the argument that different requirements imposed on advocates of different backgrounds automatically constitute an unlevel playing field. The differences may be justified, necessary and fair.
That being the case, I am introducing the amendments to remove an ambiguity that some people believe exists in the current drafting of clause 15. Confusion has arisen mainly because of the phrase in subsection (3)(c)(iii):
the nature of the source of any financial support".
The intention behind that phrase was to differentiate between the source of any financial support narrowly considered and certain of its other characteristics. The new machinery set up under the Bill would not be obliged to strike down every professional rule that allowed an exception to the principle of non-discrimination.
The Government believe that if such a rule were framed in terms of accepting or refusing work simply on the basis of whether or not it was legally aided, it would not be acceptable. The legislation ought to require those comprising the machinery to strike it down. By contrast, the Government do not believe that the machinery ought to be able to strike down a rule that permitted an advocate to refuse a legally aided case where there are reasonable grounds for him considering that the fee is not a suitable one for him in all the circumstances, when his standing, seniority and standing will be relevant.
The test of reasonableness is an objective one, and the advocate in a given instance would have to defend his application of it.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for confirming that the reasonable grounds for objection will be objective and not subjective, but can he confirm that, for the purposes of subsection (5), "reasonable grounds" will be a matter for the new machinery to consider?

The Attorney-General: Yes, I think that that is the case. What is claimed to be a reasonable ground can be the subject of an objective test, and it will fall to those who comprise the machinery to determine whether or not it is satisfied in a given case.
Subsection (5) will provide a statutory clarification of the extent of the general principle of the nondiscrimination rule. It will now be provided that the rule shall not be taken as incompatible with the general principle if it allows the advocate or litigator to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider—having regard to the circumstances of the case, the nature of his practice, or his experience and standing—that he is not being offered a proper fee.
As I have stated, the test of reasonableness is objective and the individual will have to defend it. Although the advisory committee will be free to consider the merits of rules which go beyond the statutory requirements of clause 15(3)(c)(iii), the committee and those comprising the rest of the machinery will be precluded from finding that the

interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice require a legal practitioner to act if he is not to be properly remunerated for his services.
I have perhaps spent rather too long moving the amendment, but the matter has been of the greatest concern to the legal profession, and quite properly so. I believe that, as a consequence of the substantial consultations that have taken place, the amendment meets reasonably the concerns that have properly been expressed and I hope that it will receive the approval of the House.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The Attorney-General was right to state that there has been extensive consultation about the matter. I am sure that all sides of the profession, and certainly the Bar, are grateful for the extent of the consultation.
As the Government are aware, the Bar has taken a strong line with its members in relation to legal aid. It has gone so far as to say that it should be a principle that, if a barrister is offered a brief in a field in which he is sufficiently expert, at a level appropriate for his practice, even if it is a legal aid case, he should take it. Indeed, the rule at the moment is that he must take it. I understand the difficulties that can arise from such a stringent rule, but I suggest that it is a very important principle for the litigant that there should be expert advocates to do all cases requiring such expertise, whether they are privately paid or the subject of legal aid.
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for confirming that the phrase in amendment No. 101
if there are reasonable grounds for him
is an objective test and not subjective, and that reasonable grounds for the purposes of new subsection (5) are matters for the new machinery.
How does amendment No. 101 impinge on legal aid work? Will an advocate be able to decline a legal aid case within his field of practice simply because legal aid rates are lower than his private rates? The way in which that is answered will be extremely important for litigants in future. It may have some little influence on the way in which the machinery approaches those issues.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. The consultation has been worth while. It does not follow that, because legal aid rates may be lower than some private rates, legal aid fees are not to be regarded as proper fees. All the circumstances must be considered. I have identified some that will be of general application, but all the circumstances of a case would have to be looked at and the objective test of reasonableness would then have to be determined. That would be for the new machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 15, line 42, leave out 'its' and insert 'the'.

No. 99, in page 16, line 4 leave out 'the nature of.

No. 100, in page 16, line 9 leave out 'that body's' and insert 'the'.

No. 101, in page 16, line 12 at end insert—

'(5) Rules of conduct which allow a member of the body in question to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider that, having regard to—

(a) the circumstances of the case;
(b) the nature of his practice; or
(c) his experience and standing,

he is not being offered a proper fee, are not on that account to be taken as being incompatible with the general principle.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 20

OMBUDSMAN'S FUNCTIONS

Amendments made: No. 157, in page 18, line 21, after '(a)', insert 'a person who is or was'.

No. 158, in page 18, line 22, after 'conveyancer', insert 'registered foreign lawyer'.

No. 159, in page 18, line 23, leave out 'who is and' insert 'and'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 21

RECOMMENDATIONS

Amendments made: No. 160, in page 20, line 12, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 161, in page 20, line 12, after 'made', insert—
'(bb) any other person with respect to whom the Ombudsman makes a recommendation under subsection (2);'.

No. 162, in page 20, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 and insert—

'(i) the person with respect to whom the complaint was made; or
(ii) any person who, at the material time, was connected with him;

(c) that—

(i) the person with respect to whom the complaint was made; or
(ii) any person who, at the material time, was connected with him,'.

No. 21, in page 20, line 40, after 'section' insert
'and any publicity given under subsection (9)'.

No. 22, in page 21, line 8, at end insert—
'(9) Where a person is required by subsection (8) to publicise any failure, the Ombudsman may take such steps as he considers reasonable to publicise that failure if—

(a) the period mentioned in subsection (7) has expired and that person has not complied with subsection (8); or
(b) the Ombudsman has reasonable cause for believing that that person will not comply with subsection (8) before the end of that period.

(10) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the Ombudsman under subsection (9) may be recovered by him (as a civil debt) from the person whose failure he has publicised.'.

No. 163, in page 21, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section, the person with respect to whom a complaint is made ("the first person") and another person ("the second person") are connected if—

(a) the second person—

(i) employs the first person; and
(ii) is an authorised advocate, authorised litigator, duly certificated notary public, licensed conveyancer or partnership;

(b) they are both partners in the same partnership; or
(c) the second person is a recognised body which employs the first person or of which the first person is an officer.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 25

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 22, line 35, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—

'(e) where—

(i) he is employed (whether wholly or in part), or is otherwise engaged, to assist in the conduct of

litigation and is doing so under instructions given (either generally or in relation to the proceedings) by a qualified litigator; and
(ii) the proceedings are being heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court and are not reserved family proceedings.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 3, in page 22, line 37, at end insert
'or before a master of the Supreme Court in hearings for the assessment of damages.'.

No. 4, in page 22, line 37, at end insert
'or in chambers in any county court.'.

No. 131, in page 22, line 37, at end insert
'or in hearings for the assessment of damages'.
and Government amendments Nos. 146 to 148.

The Attorney-General: Amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 147 have been tabled following an undertaking that I gave in Committee to give sympathetic consideration to an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). The customary right of solicitors' clerks to be heard in chambers in county courts is to be recognised in statute. My amendments are a little more complicated than those tabled by the Opposition, so I shall take a short time to explain their effect.
The Government amendments avoid using the term "solicitors' clerks", which is archaic and imprecise. We prefer the concept of an individual acting on the instructions of a qualified litigator—a description which covers three groups. First, it includes a practising solicitor as defined in clause 17(8)(b); secondly, it includes a corporate body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985; thirdly, it takes in any solicitor referred to in section 88(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974. In addition, although the class of persons being given these rights of audience will usually be employees of such qualified litigators, there will not always exist the legal relationship of master and servant between them.
The amendments additionally provide a power for the Lord Chancellor to prescribe, with the concurrence of the president of the family division and after consultation with the president of the Law Society, certain categories of family proceedings in which these rights of audience will not subsist as rights, but will be exercisable only at the discretion of the court in individual cases. The reason is that nearly all family business is heard in chambers. That includes family business where representation by non-legal staff may sometimes be inappropriate. It may not be necessary for the power to be used but, especially in the light of the Government's overall strategy for developing family jurisdiction, it is sensible to provide for the possibility of its exercise in future. We have consulted the senior judiciary before tabling these amendments.

Mr. William Cash: Since 1972, I have been involved in advising the Institute of Legal Executives, and I therefore declare an interest. The amendment in my name and that of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) deals with a question to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General referred.
The question is whether it should be entirely within the discretion of the judiciary to determine whether people who are members of the institute or other solicitors' clerks should be heard in the proceedings covered by the amendment. Perhaps not from time immemorial, but


certainly over many generations, it has been accepted that solicitors' clerks and, in this case, fellows of the institute should have competence and, by way of some form of prescription, the right to be heard. The amendment would reserve their position and ensure that they could be heard before a master of the Supreme Court in hearings for the assessment of damages or in chambers in any country court.
We discussed this subject in Committee. We were given to understand that the fellows of the institute and other solicitors' clerks who qualified would have the right to be heard. It appears from the Government amendment that the right is not given to them in the precise terms for which they hoped. It is of importance to the institute and to solicitors' clerks that they should be heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court. Why does a qualification appear to be imposed on their right to be heard, which has been understood for many generations?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has represented those important members of the legal profession for many years. The amendments that the Government, having taken advice, have found it possible to bring forward, give to those whom my hon. Friend assiduously represents what they reasonably need. We have listened to the representations that have been made. I believe that they now have what they reasonably need, and they certainly have that which the senior judiciary are prepared to support.
It is, of course, important for that branch of the legal profession, as it is for every other branch, to remember that they are the providers of services—services to clients and to the courts and, through each of those services, to the administration of justice.
It has been necessary to consult the senior judiciary—it would have been remiss of us if we had not done so—and what is now brought forward in the amendments represents what has the support of the judiciary. I believe that it provides what is reasonably needed and what has been reasonably pressed for.

Mr. Cash: In the light of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I shall not press my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 146, in page 23, line 31, at end insert—
' "family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989;'.

No. 147, in page 23, line 35, at end insert—
' "qualified litigator" means—

(i) any practising solicitor ("practising" having the same meaning as in section I7(8)(b));
(ii) any recognised body; and
(iii) any person who is exempt from the requirement to hold a practising certificate by virtue of section 88 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (saving for solicitors to public departments and the City of London);'.

No. 148, in page 23, line 37, at end insert—
' "reserved family proceedings" means such category of family proceedings as the Lord Chancellor may, after consulting the President of the Law Society and with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, by order prescribe;'.—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 23, line 44, after 'solicitor)' insert
'section 22 of that Act (unqualified person not to prepare certain documents etc)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 24 to 26, 32, 33 and 71.

The Attorney-General: These amendments together provide that the holder of the office of official solicitor will automatically, by virtue of his office, be given all necessary powers to perform his functions as official solicitor. They also make technical disapplications of the Solicitors Act 1974 so as to permit persons to exercise advocacy, litigation and probate rights.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 23, line 46, leave out from 'audience' to end of line 47.

Clause 26

RIGHTS TO CONDUCT LITIGATION

Amendments made: No. 25 in page 25, line 2, after 'solicitor)' insert
'section 22 of that Act (unqualified person not to prepare certain documents etc)'.

No. 26, in page 25, line 4, leave out from 'litigation' to end of line 5.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 45

PROBATE SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 32. in page 39, line 29, at end insert—
'(cc) the Official Solicitor;'.

No. 33, in page 40, line 24, at end insert—
'(4) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person does any act which would constitute an offence under subsection (1) but for an exemption given to him by this section or by or under any other enactment, he shall not be guilty of an offence under section 22 by virtue of having done that act".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule 16

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT'S

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 144, line 9, at end insert—
'. In section 90 of that Act (Official Solicitor) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—

"(3A) The holder for the time being of the office of Official Solicitor shall have the right to conduct litigation in relation to any proceedings.

(3B) When acting as Official Solicitor a person who would otherwise have the right to conduct litigation by virtue of section 26(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 shall be treated as having acquired that right solely by virtue of subsection (3A)".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 30

THE LAW SOCIETY: RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE

Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 28, line 1, leave out 'and rules of conduct'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 141, in page 28, line 6, leave out 'or rules'.

No. 142, in page 28, line 23, leave out 'or rules of conduct'.

No. 143, in page 28, line 39, leave out 'and rules'.

No. 144, in page 28, line 43, leave out 'or rules'.

Mr. Vaz: The effect of the amendments is to ensure that the Law Society's existing rules of conduct are deemed to have been approved for the purposes of rights of audience in all courts.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Why should they?

Mr. Vaz: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to speak, he is more than welcome to do so.

Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: No. The hon. Gentleman may make his own speech.
The effect is to ensure that the society's existing rules of conduct are deemed to have been approved not only for the rights of audience which solicitors already possess, but for the rights of audience in higher courts. The Law Society's training regulations, however, would continue to receive deemed approval only in respect of the rights of audience that solicitors already hold. Approval through the schedule 4 mechanism would be needed before solicitors could obtain extended rights of audience.

Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: The amendment would remove the spectre of solicitors' rights of audience in the High Court being blocked by judges unreasonably requiring the society to adopt rules that ape the practices of the Bar—"ape" being an appropriate word—such as separating preparation from advocacy, and would thus help to ensure that the will of Parliament was carried out expeditiously.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The amendment has been ably and succinctly moved by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). At the risk of further incurring the wrath of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. The Law Society's rules of conduct are deemed approved for courts to which solicitors already have access under the Bill, and that means magistrates courts and county courts.
There can be many substantial actions at county court level. There are many good solicitor—advocates at county court level. The amendment provides a more logical and rational structure by extending this to the higher courts as well. There can be little difference in terms of rules of conduct between what is deemed to be approved for county courts and what at the moment happens in the higher courts under schedule 4.
This is a logical amendment. The training regulations are new. Solicitors are propping up the rungs of advocacy. As something new, it would need to be dealt with under the schedule 4 procedure, as would any amendments to the existing solicitors' rules of conduct. That seems to me to be sufficient. As for the rules of conduct, deemed approval should apply to all courts.
There are doubts about the schedule 4 procedure. They were voiced in Committee and have led to the tabling of

other amendments that relate to the powers of designated judges. If the Government were disposed to accept the amendment, it would resolve some of those doubts.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I assume from the use by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) of the word "ape" that this is some kind of guerrilla warfare by himself and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on behalf of the Law Society. I do not understand how the Law Society, through the hon. Member for Leicester, East, could say in Committee, "When we think about legal executives it is a matter for the new machinery," when it is prepared to say on Report, on a matter that affects the Law Society, that it wants to bypass the new machinery. We have not heard a word that would justify making the Law Society an exception to the rule that the new machinery should decide what are the appropriate rules.
I regret having to say it, but according to the speeches we have just heard, the Law Society has fallen far below the standard that it generally sets for itself. I hope that we shall hear that the Government resist the amendments stoutly and that these matters will be dealt with by the new machinery.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) either does not understand the framework of the Bill or, regrettably, has misstated it. I must therefore urge the House to resist the amendments. Their effect would be to remove the restrictions as to the extent to which the rules of conduct of the Law Society are deemed to have been properly approved for the purposes of clause 25. The society's rules of conduct would thus be deemed to have been approved in their entirety for the purposes of granting rights of audience and would not require approval or be subject to review on any grounds, including whether or not they would have been approved had they been submitted for approval under the procedure laid down in part I of schedule 4.
The amendments would therefore significantly undermine the provisions for bringing the Law Society in to the new framework for granting the rights of audience created by this part of the Bill. I was therefore somewhat astonished to hear the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who normally follows our proceedings with great care, say that his amendments would reflect the will of Parliament when the will of Parliament is to create a carefully constructed framework which his amendments would entirely undercut.
All other bodies seeking to grant rights of audience to their members are to be subject to the requirement that they possess rules of conduct which are, in the view of the Lord Chancellor and of four senior judges, appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice in relation to the court or proceedings in question. By excluding the rules of conduct of the Law Society from the review mechanism established by clause 30, the amendment would set the Law Society outside that framework, in that it would become the only body whose rules of conduct were not open to scrutiny by the advisory committee, the Director General of Fair Trading, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges in respect of its members exercising rights of audience.
It is hard to find any reason why the Law Society should want these amendments to be put forward on its behalf, or to be accorded this unique privilege. Therefore., I must advise the House to resist them.

[The Solicitor-General]

Amendment negatived.

Clause 33

FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 149, in page 30, line 39, leave out
'subject to the provisions of this Part'.—[The Solicitor-General]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 31, line 33, at end insert
'(including conditions as to repayment)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 28.

The Solicitor-General: These are minor and technical amendments.

Mr. Vaz: I am somewhat surprised at what the Solicitor-General said. I understood that the amendments dealt with the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. I was given to understand by the Government Whip, who asked me not to speak on the Ways and Means resolution, that the Solicitor-General would speak to the amendments. They are important. They relate directly to the Solicitor-General's letter to me and, I assume, other members of the Committee about the changes that were envisaged on the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board.
The House may not be aware that this morning members of the Committee received a letter from the Solicitor-General dated 24 July 1990 about the amount of grant that is to be given to the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. It is to be a grant of some £900,000. He went into great detail about exactly what the grant is to be used for. The main emphasis of the letter is the cost per square metre of the premises of the board. He told us that the central charge per square metre is likely to be in the region of £375, with rates—I think that he means poll tax—of some £115 per square metre and maintenance and other charges at approximately £40 per square metre. On the basis of those charges, a quarter of a million pounds in respect of the grant of £900,000 of taxpayers' money is to be paid in rent and rates—or poll tax—for the board.
The Solicitor-General went on to set out the conditions under which the grant is repayable. He said that the aim is that the board should become self-financing as soon as possible. That is precisely the point that I and other hon. Members raised in Committee. How much of the money will be repayable? Will it be pump-priming money—the phrase used by the Solicitor-General in describing the £460,000 given to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers? When will the board be self-financing? Is there a timetable? All that he said in his letter to me and other members of the Committee was that it would be as soon as possible.
The Solicitor-General went on to say that any further money would be recouped through subsequent fees. He did not say how much the fees would be. I raise the matter because it is of concern to me. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill and on the Committee on the Legal Aid Bill. I heard the Solicitor-General go on about the need for value for money. The Government are giving

away almost £1 million of taxpayers' money on a scheme that has no timetable. Is it a bottomless pit? Will he come back at a later stage and say, "£900,000 is not enough because the rent has risen from £250,000 to another figure. We should like some more money, please."?
It is important that, rather than telling us that the amendments are technical, the Solicitor-General should give us an explanation of them. He also promised on an earlier amendment that he would tell us the amount that he proposes to pay to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. He said earlier—I respected his honesty—that he did not know whether the latest grant of £130,000 would be the final grant paid to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. I saw the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) go to speak to those in the civil service Box, and presumably he was supplied with an answer to the question. When the Solicitor-General replies, I hope that he will convey the answer to the House. If the two figures are added together. we are talking of £1·5 million. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston has moved to the civil service Box once again, so I shall continue until the necessary information is conveyed to the Minister.
About £1·5 million of taxpayers' money will be paid without any conditions being set. There is no timetable for when the money will come back. We do not know what the fees will be. There is no understanding of how long the enterprise will last. We have not been told how the expenditure will be monitored. We hear, however, that value for money is the prime criterion of the legal aid fund. We wait in hope for answers from the Solicitor-General. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston is about to return to his place. Let us be supplied with the figures. These important amendments should not be passed on the nod, as the Solicitor-General would wish.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is right to describe the amendments as technical. As I explained, the pump-priming funding of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board amounts to about £900,000 a year. I summarised the contents of my letter, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He rightly quoted from it.
The board must provide itself with suitable accommodation, and it is the sort of board that one would expect to find accommodated in London. That is a major part of the cost. That and other matters are set out in my letter.
It is not easy to say how quickly the authorised conveyancing practitioners will make application and become self-financing. As there is considerable enthusiasm on the part of several fairly large bodies to participate, I hope that the process will not be over long.
I have received such advice as can be given on the pump-priming money for the council that will represent the licensed conveyancers. It is not possible to say when the money will cease to be necessary and when the council will become self-financing. That is not entirely surprising. The hon. Member for Leicester, East has had the benefit of being a solicitor, and he is now moving into his new profession. He will appreciate that to start a new profession—albeit a small one with about 700 members—costs money. I have in mind the licensed conveyancers and the expenditure of £430,000 so far. It is the will of Parliament that this should be done. The hon. Gentleman would rightly be the first to complain if Parliament willed the end but not the means.
The same can be said of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the board as if he were not in favour of it, but I do not think that that is his stance. I think that he accepts that it must be properly funded. We must look to the future to ascertain how quickly it becomes self-financing. I am sorry that I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman further, but I have done my best.

Mr. Vaz: I am sorry, but I must speak again—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already spoken once. We are on Report. I must now put the Question.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 31, line 36, at end insert—
'(13) Any sums repaid by the Board in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (11) shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 35

AUTHORISATION OF PRACTITIONERS

Amendment made: No. 150, in page 33, line 15, leave out from 'rules' to 'so' and insert
made by the Board and any regulations made under section 38'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 36

REFUSAL OF APPROVAL AND IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 34. line 29, at end insert—

'(8A) Where the Board—

(a) proposes to impose a condition under this section on an authorised practitioner; and
(b) is satisfied that the circumstances of the case are exceptional and justify the condition taking effect immediately,

it may disregard subsections (5) to (8) when imposing the condition.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 30.

The Solicitor-General: This amendment enables the board, in a case of urgency, to impose a condition on authorisation immediately without having to wait for a period of 28 days to expire within which representations can be made under clause 36.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 151, in page 34, line 34, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 39'.

No. 30, in page 34, line 34, at end insert—
'(11) An authorised practitioner who fails to comply with a condition imposed on him under this section shall not thereby cease to be such a practitioner; but in such a case the Board may—

(a) impose additional, or substituted, conditions on him, or
(b) revoke or suspend his authorisation in accordance with rules made under section 37(1).'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 38

REGULATIONS ABOUT COMPETENCE AND CONDUCT ETC. OF AUTHORISED PRACTITIONERS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 35, line 33, leave out 'potential' and insert 'prospective'.
This is a technical amendment to ensure consistency throughout the Bill in the nomenclature and use of the word "prospective".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 35, line 38, at end add—
'( ) requiring that any authorised practitioner who is proposing to provide conveyancing services to the public by appointing a qualified person (as defined in section 34(6)) in private practice to act on its behalf in connection with the provision of those services shall only appoint such a person;

(a) where it selects those persons which it appoints to provide conveyancing services on the basis of objective criteria which relate to the quality of the services available from, and the qualifications held by, those persons and their officers, employees or members;
(b) where such criteria are not applied in a discriminatory manner; and
(c) where a statement of such criteria is available on request from the authorised practitioner w all qualified persons who may wish to provide conveyancing services on behalf of that authorised practitioner.'.

The amendment seeks to address the circumstances in which an authorised conveyancing practitioner—that is, one of the banks or building societies which will be receiving almost £1 million per year towards their authorised board to help them out—decides to provide conveyancing services, not through the in-house department but by instructing solicitors or licensed conveyancers in private practice to provide the conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner—that is, the corporate conveyancer. The danger is that authorised practitioners may select only one or two solicitors in a particular area to provide conveyancing services, which could endanger the survival of other independent solicitors and licensed conveyancers.
The amendment would enable regulations to be made ensuring that authorised practitioners had to select solicitors and licensed conveyancers to act on their behalf on the basis of objective, qualitative criteria and would have to instruct any firm that fulfilled those criteria.
That reflects the present admirable practice of banks and building societies in not discriminating between one firm of solicitors and another. I hope that that practice, which is to the benefit of solicitors and the client, will be continued. Discriminatory selection by one of the new professions of one of the older professions—not the oldest profession—could be damaging.

The Solicitor-General: When dealing with old professions, one should not be discriminatory but one should always be discriminating.
When we discussed this amendment in Committee, I said that I would think about it further. As I said then, the Lord Chancellor's regulations will provide that authorised practitioners must maintain satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in providing services. The


regulations make provision to ensure the efficient transaction of business. In that context we have thought about the matter.
Authorised practitioners must bear the requirements in mind when they select a qualified person to act as agent. The Lord Chancellor said recently, however, to the president of the Law Society that it would be a significant advantage to the client to know that solicitors employed as agents by authorised practitioners were fully competent to do the work under the special circumstances that will obtain. Therefore, the Government are prepared to consider whether the regulations—this is how we think that it should be dealt with—should contain criteria for the suitability of solicitor agents.
The existence of the criteria would be a substantial advantage to solicitors who thought they met them and that they were being unfairly or unjustifiably excluded from the lists of those who authorised practitioners choose to work for them.
I do not think that, realistically, we can look for the regulations to do more than that. Decisions on how many solicitors to use as possible agents and which ones must be matters for the commercial judgment of authorised practitioners, provided that all agents meet the standards of service that authorised practitioners will be required to uphold.
As the House will be well aware, the Lord Chancellor has undertaken to consult widely on the regulations and has already asked the president of the Law Society for his views on what criteria should be considered in respect of this matter. I hope that that is a helpful answer which will achieve, as far as possible, in practice—

Mr. Fraser: That is not a helpful answer because, under the provisions, all the solicitors might come up to standard, but will not be selected.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if my answer was not helpful. We have done our best to think about the matter. It would not necessarily be in the interests of fair competition to attempt to regulate the way in which authorised practitioners, as private businesses, allocated their work. That is an entirely different matter from the allocation of contracts by public authorities. The Government are not likely to be better able than practitioners to guess at appropriate commercial practices. I believe that what the Lord Chancellor has offered to do in relation to the provisions will be of assistance. I am sorry that I cannot offer more than that at present.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 43

ADVISORY AND SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING

Amendments made: No. 152, in page 38, line 21, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 38'.

No. 153, in page 38, line 30, leave out 'this part' and insert 'section 38'.

No. 164 in page 38, line 45, leave out subsection (9).—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 45

PREPARATION OF PAPERS FOR PROBATE ETC

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 39, line 29, at end insert—
'(cc) the Official Solicitor,'.

No. 33, in page 40, line 24, at end insert—
'(4) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person does any act which would constitute an offence under subsection (1) but for an exemption given to him by this section or by or under any other enactment, he shall not be guilty of an offence under section 22 by virtue of having done that act".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 44, line 31, leave out clause 49.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 51

IMMUNITY OF ADVOCATES FROM ACTIONS IN NEGLIGENCE AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 45, line 32, leave out from 'described)' to end of line 33 and insert
'which prohibit barristers from entering into contracts or restrict their right to do so.'.
This is a clarifying amendment, which has no effect on the meaning of the clause, but merely clarifies the fact that subsection (1) does not alter the powers of the general council of the Bar to restrict or prohibit a barrister's right to enter into contract.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56

EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 165, in page 48, line 30, leave out
'or by a designated judge' and insert a designated judge or the Director'.

No. 166, in page 48, line 31, after 'by', insert 'or to'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 58

QUALIFICATION FOR JUDICIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 50, line 1, leave out 'has a 10 year' and insert
'is a solicitor or barrister of 10 years standing with a'.
The purpose of the amendment—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the Government Whips for moving our amendments, and if they are prepared to carry on doing so, I shall sit down, but I expect that they will change their minds.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the period of qualification of a solicitor to count towards the total period of qualification for the purpose of receiving judicial office. I can give an example from my experience. I think that I have been a solicitor for about 30 years, almost to the day. If the Law Society were to obtain rights of audience in a higher court, and if I were to choose to be an advocate in a higher court—I am not sure that I would—with my considerable experience of 30 years as a solicitor, as the rules stand I would have to start all over again if I wanted to clock up 10 years to obtain judicial office. It is a personal example, but it is a good one. It


would seem a pity if I had to put in 40 years' experience in order to qualify for appointment for judicial office. That is why it would he right if rights of audience were given, and I could count the 30 years, as well as the time that I was qualified to be an advocate in the higher court.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I agree with what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said. Many solicitors are already experienced advocates. I salute the hon. Gentleman's 30 years. Many have specialties that are useful for the bench, which is different from the Bar in terms of the attributes that sometimes make good and great judges. Many solicitors also have wide experience which is useful to the bench. Advocacy experience is not always needed for the bench.
Last, but not least, one does not have to appoint Lords Justices. All that is required, under the amendment, is the largest pool of experience and, hopefully, wisdom for the main office that needs those qualities.

The Solicitor-General: I think that there is some misunderstanding about the effect of the clause as amended. The personal example offered by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) illustrates the importance of stressing that the Government have made special provision for those currently qualified as solicitors and who in future obtain full High Court or Supreme Court rights of audience. The deeming provisions in paragraph 3 of schedule 17 will enable those solicitors—this will include the hon. Member for Norwood—to count their years' standing and years' possession of rights of audience in the lower courts as if they were years' possession of higher qualifications. Solicitors qualifying in future would have to hold the higher qualification for the full period required for any particular appointment.
The amendment would have undesirable effects which I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not intend, and would put an undue burden on others who become freshly qualified, requiring them to last longer. I hope that my explanation has been satisfactory, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 61

DISTRICT JUDGES

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 52, line 20, at end insert—
'(2A) Any reference in any enactment, instrument or other document to an office which is, or includes, one to which this section applies shall be construed as a reference to, or (as the case may be) as including a reference to, that office by its new name.'.—[The Attorney-Genera.]

Clause 78

FUNCTIONS OF THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 62, line 43, leave out '£3000' and insert '£5000'.
The effect of the amendment is to increase the maximum penalty of the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal from £3,000 to £5,000.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 177, in page 70, line 10, leave out clause 88.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 89

LIABILITY OF MAGISTRATES FOR DAMAGES AND COSTS

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 71, line 42, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

'(6) The following sections shall cease to have effect—

(a) 46 (warrant granted on conviction or order made by another justice);
(b) 47 (exercise of discretionary powers);
(c) 48 (compliance with, or confirmation on appeal to, superior court);
(d) 49 (distress warrant for rates);
(e) 51 (no action in county court if defendant justice objects);
(f) 52 (limitation of damages against justice); and
(g) 54 (provisions as to prerogative proceedings and membership of Crown Court).'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 174.

The Attorney-General: These amendments tidy up the provisions relating to the liability of magistrates for damages and costs. If I attempted to explain how they do that, I should need tidying up myself.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 91

JURISDICTION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 73, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) In section 5 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (matters subject to investigation), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
(7) For the purposes of this section, matters concerning listing in the courts (except directions by a judge in an individual case) shall, notwithstanding paragraph 6A of Schedule 3, be taken to be administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department or, in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Court Service.".'.
The reason for the amendment is almost self-evident. It is that the Parliamentary Commissioner would have jurisdiction to look at the listing of court cases except when that was done under the direction of a judge; so that if a judge directed a case to be heard on a particular day, that would be a matter of judicial decision. But other listing decisions would be administrative decisions and subject to the jurisdiction of and investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. Since most of the complaints made by solicitors about the inefficiency of the courts relate to listing, this would be an effective remedy and provide an effective supervisory function to be exercised over the dispatch of justice. As the Government believe in efficiency and saving money, I hope that they will accept the amendment.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The reason for the amendment is indeed self-evident. This is a primary cause for complaint, and far from being a judical act, this is often a purely administrative one. As such, it should come within the purview of the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has said. It is wrong that the privilege of the judges should be extended to cover a matter of this nature. If we had had a minister of justice who was accountable to the House, listing matters of this sort would never have been excluded from the purview of the Ombudsman in the first place.

The Solicitor-General: I must resist these amendments. There is a misunderstanding. It is easy to say that listing is a purely administrative function, but it is not accurate to say so. The intention of the clause as a whole is to allow the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate the administrative acts of court staff—that is, actions necessary to carry on the administration of the courts—but to prevent him from investigating actions taken in support of the judiciary in the judicial process. The distinction is important, as is widely recognised, if the independence of the judiciary and the judicial process is to be preserved.
I am surprised that the amendment is being pressed by the Opposition because, although it is perfectly true that listing is usually performed by court staff, it is a function carried out on behalf of the judges and under their authority. That is an important matter of principle. If listing were not accepted as a judicial function, it would theoretically be open to the Executive to influence the outcome of cases, including those to which public authorities were a party. The Executive could do that by, for example, ensuring that cases were listed before judges known to be sympathetic to a particular point of view, or simply by delaying or by bringing forward the hearing of a case. There is a much more important underlying point of principle involved than is recognised. I must resist the amendment.

Mr. Fraser: If a solicitor is negligent, he pays the costs of the case. However, if a judge or his clerk are negligent, they do not pay the costs. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 92

TIME WHEN ACTION BROUGHT FOR PURPOSES OF LIMITATION

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 73, line 17, leave out clause 92.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 184 and 185.

The Solicitor-General: The amendment is a good example of consultation producing better legislation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who used his own deep practical experience as a solicitor to advance arguments in Committee to which I was instantly attracted. His arguments were about the disadvantages of a three-year flat period for limitation during which one had not only to issue but to serve one's process.
One has three years, or it may be six years, in which to issue process and only four months rather than the previous 12 months in which to serve it. Those with detailed knowledge of obtaining leave to serve in difficult circumstances realise that if we had taken the route suggested by the civil justice review, many detailed

administrative provisions made under rules of court would have taken much time to understand. I am not talking here about the physical process of serving, although that can be relevant.
The hon. Member for Norwood said that ordinary litigants would think that they had three years, which is the normal time for a personal injuries case, and might turn up to their solicitor in the last week or the last day or two and the solicitor would not have time to serve process. Insurance companies and others might also be less constructive and helpful than they are under the present rules, and the whole procedure would cause more trouble than it was worth. I said that we would think again.
In the meantime, we had an extremely helpful paper on the matter from the Law Commission. We have carefully examined that and have decided that the civil justice review suggestion of a period of limitation in which not only service but issue had to be carried out was outweighed by the disadvantages. We have therefore tabled the amendment. I am grateful to the members of the civil justice review for the attention that they gave to this matter.

Mr. Fraser: This is one of the few occasions in my time as a Member of Parliament when I have seen a victory for reason on an important point of principle. I shall not be ungenerous in victory. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for the way in which he has examined the matter. I rejoice at what has happened.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 93

COSTS AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 73, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) In any civil proceedings, a magistrates' court may disallow or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules.

(1A) In subsection (1), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or
(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

No. 38, in page 74, line 9, after 'legal' insert 'or other".

No. 39, in page 74, line 17, leave out
'or out of central funds'

No. 40, in page 74, line 20, at end insert 'or other'.

No. 41, in page 74, line 27, leave out 'and'.

No. 42, in page 74, line 31, at end insert
'and
(d) shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken under the rules may appeal to the Crown Court";.——[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 97

PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

Amendment made: No. 168, in page 76, line 14, at end insert—

'(3) The general rule making power of any authority having power to make rules of court for Northern Ireland shall include power to make any provision which may be made under section 93 of the Act of 1989 (rules of court) subject to the modifications that in subsection (2)—

(a) paragraphs (e) and (i) shall be omitted; and
(b) in paragraphs (f) and (g) the references to England and Wales shall be read as references to Northern Ireland.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 99

INTERPRETATION

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 179, in page 78, line 5, leave out from 'body' to end of line 7 and insert
'(other than any body established by this Act), includes any person who is not a member of that body but who may be subject to disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with any of that body's rules;'.
This is an important drafting amendment to the definition of clause 99, which I should be most unwise to describe.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 102, in page 78, line 7, at end insert—
'''multi-national partnership" has the meaning given by section ( Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors)(9);'.

No. 44, in page 78, line 19, at end insert—
'''qualified person" has the meaning given in section 34(6);'.

No. 103, in page 78, line 19, at end insert—
'registered foreign lawyer" has the meaning given by section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors)(9);'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 100

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No 104, in page 78, line 45, at end insert—
'(2A) Any such regulations or order may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions or savings as the person making the regulations or order considers expedient.'.

No. 105, in page 79, line 2, after '50' insert
'(Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors)(5) or (7)'.

No. 106, in page 79, line 2, after '50' insert '105(3A)'.

No. 129, in page 79, line 2, after '8' insert
'or paragraph 9(c) of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies)'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 103

EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 107, in page 79, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) section (Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates);'.—[The Attorney-General.]

No. 108, in page 79, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) section 58(2), so far as necessary;'.

No. 180, in page 79, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) sections (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) to (Tying-in: enforcement);'.

No. 46, in page 79, line 31, at beginning insert 'section 97, this section and'.

No. 47, in page 79, line 36, at end insert—
'( ) paragraphs 3B, 20 to 21A, 24, 25 and 25A of Schedule 14;'.

No. 48, in page 79, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) section 58(2), so far as necessary;'.

No. 49, in page 79, line 43, leave out 'and 101 to 11)5' and insert—
'101, 102, this section and sections 104 and 105, so far as necessary'.

No. 50, in page 80, line 6, leave out 'Schedules 14' and insert—
'paragraphs 3B, 15B, 20, 21, 24 and 25 of Schedule 14; ( ) Schedules'.

No. 181, in page 80, line 6, after 'amend' insert 'or relate to'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 104

COMMENCEMENT

12 midnight

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 80, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

'(1) The following provisions come into force on the passing of this Act—

(a) sections 1, 5, 99 to 103, this section and section 105(1); and
(b) paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 15.

(2) The following provisions come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) sections 6, 8, 9, 14, 53, (Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates), 59, 60, 72, 74 to 78, (Agreements with solicitors for payment by hourly rates), 80 to 83 and 89 to 91;
(b) paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 16 and 20 of Schedule 15;
(c) paragraphs 4, 5, 11 to 13, 38 and 40 of Schedule 16; and
(d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 17.'.

This amendment extends various provisions of the Bill that will come into force on the passing of the Act or two months after the Act is passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 105

SHORT TITLE, MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, TRANSITIONALS AND REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 109, in page 80, line 23, at end insert—
'(3A) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such amendments or repeals in relevant enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by Part II with respect to advocacy, litigation, conveyancing or probate services.
(3B) In subsection (3A) "relevant enactments" means such enactments or instruments passed or made before or in the same Session as this Act as may be specified in the order.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

New Schedule

LICENSED CONVEYANCERS

PART I

ADDITIONAL POWERS OF COUNCIL FOR LICENSED CONVEYANCERS

IN CONNECTION WITH SECTIONS 25, 26, AND 46

General

1. In this Schedule—

"the Act of 1985" means the Administration of Justice Act 1985;
"advocacy licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of a right of audience;
"the Council" means the Council for Licensed Conveyancers;
"the Discipline and Appeals Committee" means the committee established under section 25 of the Act of 1985;
"litigation licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of a right to conduct litigation;
"probate licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of an exemption under section 46; and
"relevant licence" means a licence under Part II of the Act of 1985 or an advocacy, litigation or probate licence.

Qualification regulations and rules of conduct

2.—(1) For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers), the Council may make such qualification regulations and rules of conduct as it considers appropriate in connection with the granting of the rights or exemption in question.

(2) In making any such regulations or rules the Council may, in particular, do anything which it has power to do in making rules under section 13 of the Act of 1985 (training rules).

Applications for licences

3.—(1) An application for an advocacy licence, litigation licence or probate licence shall be made to the Council in such manner, and shall be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under this paragraph.

(2) Any such rules—

(a) may prescribe the forms to be used in connection with applications for any such licence; and
(b) may provide for applications of any description specified in the rules to be exempt from any of the requirements of the rules.

(3) Rules made under section 14 of the Act of 1985 and this paragraph may make provision with respect to applications for composite licences.

Issue of licences

4.—(1) If, on an application for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence, the Council is satisfied that—

(a) the applicant has complied with such qualification regulations, rules of conduct or other requirements as are applicable in his case in relation to the licence applied for;
(b) that he has made adequate arrangements for the purpose of complying with any provisions which are applicable in his case in relation to the licence applied for; and
(c) that he is a fit and proper person to provide the advocacy, litigation or probate services in question,

the Council may issue the applicant either with a licence free of conditions or with a licence subject to such conditions as it sees fit to impose.

(2) If the Council is for any reason not so satisfied, or for any other reason refuses the application, it shall notify the applicant of its refusal and of the grounds on which the application has been refused.

(3) Subsections (3) to (6) of section 15 of the Act of 1985 (issue of licences under section 14 of that Act) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, with respect to any application under paragraph 3 and any licence in force under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) as they apply with respect to any application under section 14 of that Act and any licence under Part II of that Act.

Conditional licences

5.—(1) This paragraph has effect in any case where a person applies for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence—

(a) for the first time;
(b) when a licence of the kind applied for which has previously been held by him has been subject to conditions;
(c) when, on the first day of the period to which the licence applied for would (if granted) relate, a period of twelve months or more will have elapsed since he held a licence of that kind;
(d) after the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order in his case under section 26 of the Act of 1985.

(2) This paragraph also has effect in any case where a person applies for such a licence and any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (e) to (j) of section 16 of the Act of 1985 (conditional licences) apply in his case.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to subsection (4) of section 16 of the Act of 1985, as applied by sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph.

(4) In any case where this paragraph has effect the Council may, on issuing an advocacy, litigation or probate licence to the applicant, issue it subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit.

(5) The Council's decision in any such case to impose any particular conditions under this paragraph may be made by reference to such criteria of general application as may have been determined by the Council.

(6) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (4), conditions may be imposed under that sub-paragraph—

(a) for restricting the kinds of service that may be provided by the applicant by virtue of his having the advocacy, litigation or probate licence in question; or
(b) for requiring the applicant to take any specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Council, be conducive to his carrying on an efficient practice as a licensed conveyancer who provides the additional services authorised by that licence,

and conditions may be imposed under that sub-paragraph (whether for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) or otherwise) as they may be under Part II of the Act of 1985.

(7) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 16 of the Act of 1985 shall have effect, with the necessary modifications, with respect to an advocacy, litigation or probate licence as they have effect with respect to a licence issued under Part II of that Act.

Register of licensed conveyancers

6.—(1) Where an advocacy, litigation or probate licence is in force with respect to a licensed conveyancer, the Council shall enter details of the licence in the appropriate place in the register of licensed conveyancers maintained by it under section 19 of the Act of 1985.

(2) The Council shall accordingly cause the appropriate entries to be made on the issue of any advocacy, litigation or probate licence and deletions on any such licence ceasing to be in force.

(3) Where any such licence is for the time being suspended, the Council shall cause that fact to be noted in the register against the name of the licensed conveyancer concerned.

Code of conduct

7.—(1) The rules made by the Council under section 20 of the Act of 1985 (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline) shall also be made in pursuance of the Council's general duty under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers)(5).

(2) Those rules may also provide for regulating the association of licensed conveyancers with respect to whom advocacy, litigation or probate licences are in force, with other persons in connection with the provision of advocacy, litigation or (as the case may be) probate services to members of the public.

Effect of suspension or disqualification under Part II of the Act of 1985

8. Where a licence issued under Part II of the Act of 1985 ceases to be in force (whether because it is suspended or the licensed conveyancer concerned is disqualified from holding a such a licence or for any other reason), any advocacy, litigation or probate licence in force with respect to that licensed conveyancer at the time shall cease to have effect to the same extent as the licence under Part II of the Act of 1985.

Removal of disqualification from holding a licence

9.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order directing that a licensed conveyancer shall be disqualified (either permanently or during a specified period) from holding an advocacy licence, a litigation licence or a probate licence, he shall not, while his disqualification continues in force, be issued with a licence of a kind to which the disqualification relates unless the Committee, on an application made to them in that behalf, direct otherwise.

(2) An application under this paragraph shall not be made to the Committee—

(a) within ten months of the date of the Committee's order relating to the kind of licence in question; or
(b) within ten months of a previous such application by the licensed conveyancer concerned with respect to that kind of licence.

Revocation on grounds of error or fraud

10.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee are satisfied that a relevant licence was issued to any person as a result of any error, or as a result of fraud on the part of that person, they may if they think fit by order revoke that licence and any other relevant licence issued to that person.

(2) Where a person has had a relevant licence which was held by him revoked, he shall not be issued with any relevant licence except on the advice of the Committee given to the Council as the result of an application made by that person to the Committee.

(3) On any such application the Committee may, if they think fit, direct that the applicant shall be disqualified from holding any relevant licence, or a relevant licence of a specified kind, until the expiry of such period as may be specified in the direction.

(4) Paragraph 9 shall apply in relation to a direction under sub-paragraph (3) as it applies in relation to any direction of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.

Recognised bodies

11. Section 32 of the Act of 1985 (provision of conveyancing services by recognised bodies) shall have effect as if the references to conveyancing services included references to advocacy, litigation or probate services.

PART II

AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO POWERS OF COUNCIL ETC.

Delegation of powers etc.

12.—(1) Subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under any enactment, the Council may arrange for any of its functions (other than those of making rules, schemes or standing orders under Part II of the Act of 1985) to be discharged—

(a) by a committee of the Council; or
(b) by a member of the Council's staff.

(2) The Council may make rules providing for functions conferred by Part II of the Act of 1985 on any committee established under that Part to be discharged by a committee established under this paragraph.

(3) In exercising its powers under sub-paragraphs (1) or (2), the Council may impose restrictions or conditions on the committee by which the functions concerned are to be discharged.

(4) The Council may make rules providing for any of its committees (including one established under Part II of the Act of 1985) to refer any matter of a kind specified in the rules, in such circumstances as may be so specified, to any other such committee, or to the Council.

(5) Where any matter is referred under sub-paragraph (4) to a committee of the Council or to the Council, that committee or (as the case may be) the Council shall have the same power to deal with it as the committee referring it.

(6) The number of members of a committee established under this paragraph, and the terms on which they are to hold and vacate office, shall be fixed by the Council.

(7) A committee established under this paragraph may include persons who are not members of the Council (whether licensed conveyancers or not) but a majority of the members of any such committee (including the chairman) shall be members of the Council.

(8) The validity of any proceedings of such a committee shall not be affected by any casual vacancy among its members.

(9) Any rules made under this paragraph—

(a) may make such incidental and supplemental provision as the Council considers appropriate; and
(b) may make different provision for different circumstances.

Council's intervention powers

13.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985 (intervention in licensed conveyancer's practice) shall also be exercisable where—

(a) the Council is satisfied that a sole licensed conveyancer has abandoned his practice; or
(b) the Council is satisfied that a licensed conveyancer has been practising in breach of any condition imposed on him in connection with any relevant licence of his.

(2) The powers—

(a) conferred by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985; and
(b) exercisable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b),

shall only be exercised if the Council has given the licensed conveyancer notice in writing that it is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) and also (at the same or any later time) notice in writing that the powers conferred by Part II of that Schedule are accordingly exercisable in his case.

Inadequate professional services

14.—(1) The Council may take any of the steps mentioned in paragraph 15 ("the steps") with respect to a licensed conveyancer where it appears to it that the professional


services provided by him in connection with any matter in which he or his firm has been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of him as a licensed conveyancer.

(2) The Council shall not take any of the steps unless it is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate to do so.

(3) In determining in any case whether it is appropriate to take any of the steps, the Council may—

(a) have regard to the existence of any remedy which it is reasonable to expect to be available to the client in civil proceedings; and
(b) where proceedings seeking any such remedy have not been begun by him, have regard to whether it is reasonable to expect him to begin them.

(4) The Council's powers under this paragraph are exercisable in relation to a person who was, at the material time, a licensed conveyancer even though he is no longer a licensed conveyancer and references to a licensed conveyancer in this paragraph and paragraphs 15 to 20, so far as they relate to the exercise of those powers, shall be construed accordingly.

Inadequate professional services: steps that may be taken

15.—(1) The steps are—

(a) determining that the costs to which the licensed conveyancer is entitled in respect of his services ("the costs") are to be limited to such amount as may be specified in the determination and directing him to comply, or to secure compliance, with such one or more of the permitted requirements as appear to the Council to be necessary in order for effect to be given to its determination;
(b) directing him to secure the rectification, at his expense or at that of his firm, of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the matter in question as it may specify;
(c) directing him to pay such compensation to the client as the Council sees fit to specify in the direction;
(d) directing him to take, at his expense or at that of his firm, such other action in the interests of the client as it may specify.

(2) The "permitted requirements" are—

(a) that the whole or part of any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the costs be refunded;
(b) that the whole or part of the costs be remitted;
(c) that the right to recover the costs be waived, whether wholly or to any specified extent.

(3) The power of the Council to take any such steps is not confined to cases where the client may have a cause of action against the licensed conveyancer for negligence.

Inadequate professional services: compensation

16.—(1) The amount specified in a direction by virtue of paragraph 15(1)(c) shall not exceed £1,000.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting for the sum of £1,000 such other sum as he considers appropriate.

(3) Before making any such order the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Council.

(4) Any statutory instrument made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Inadequate professional services: failure to comply with direction

17.—(1) If a licensed conveyancer fails to comply with a direction given under this Part of this Schedule, any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the Discipline and Appeals Committee; but no other proceedings whatever shall be brought in respect of it.

(2) On the hearing of such a complaint the Discipline and Appeals Committee may, if it thinks fit (and whether or not it makes any order under section 26(2) of the Act of 1985), direct that the direction be treated, for the purpose of enforcement, as if it were contained in an order made by the High Court.

Inadequate professional services: fees

18.—(1) The Council may, by regulations made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make provision for the payment, by any client with respect to whom the Council is asked to consider whether to take any of the steps, of such fee as may be prescribed.

(2) The regulations may provide for the exemption of such classes of client as may be prescribed.

(3) Where a client pays the prescribed fee it shall be repaid to him if the Council takes any of the steps in the matter with respect to which the fee was paid.

(4) In this paragraph "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations.

Inadequate professional services: costs

19. Where the Council takes any of the steps with respect to a licensed conveyancer it may also direct him to pay to the Council—

(a) the amount of the fee repayable by the Council to the client under paragraph 18(3); and
(b) an amount which is calculated by the Council as the cost to it of dealing with the complaint, or which in its opinion represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost.

Duty of Discipline and Appeals Committee

20. Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee—

(a) is considering, or has considered, an application or complaint with respect to a licensed conveyancer; and
(b) is of the opinion that the Council should consider whether to take any of the steps with respect to that licensed conveyancer,

it shall inform the Council.

Power to examine files

21.—(1) Where the Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating any complaint made to it—

(a) alleging professional misconduct by a licensed conveyancer; or
(b) relating to the quality of any professional services provided by a licensed conveyancer,

the Council may give notice to the licensed conveyancer or his firm requiring the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Council, at a time and place to be fixed by the Council, of all documents in the possession of the licensed conveyancer or his firm in connection with the matters to which the complaint relates (whether or not they relate also to other matters).

(2) The provisions of paragraphs 9(2) to (12), 11 and 12 of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985 shall apply in relation to the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) as they apply in relation to the powers conferred by paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule.

Interest on clients' money

22. Where a licensed conveyancer—

(a) is required by rules made under section 23 of the Act of 1985 to place any sum of money in a separate deposit account; but
(b) fails to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable,

the Council may give a direction requiring him to account to the client in question for any interest which has not been earned but which would have been earned if that sum had been placed in a separate deposit account as soon as was reasonably practicable.

Full and limited licences

23. In section 15 of the Act of 1985 (issue of licences by Council), the following subsections shall be added at the end—

"(7) A licence issued under this Part may be endorsed by the Council as—

(a) a full licence, if the Council is satisfied that the person to whom it is issued has complied, or will comply, with the requirements made under this Part with respect to professional indemnity and compensation; or
(b) as a limited licence, if the Council is not so satisfied.

(8) Rules made under section 21 may make provision for the making, or removal, of endorsements while a licence is in force and for the recording of any such endorsement, or of its removal, in the register maintained under section 19."

Cases in which conditions may be attached to licences

24. In section 16(1) of the Act of 1985 (cases in which conditions may be attached to licences), the following shall be substituted for paragraph (i)—

"(i) after having been committed to prison in civil proceedings;
(ia) after having been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or deception or a serious arrestable offence (as defined by section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984); or".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New schedule

FOREIGN LAWYERS: PARTNERSHIPS AND RECOGNISED BODIES

PART I

REGISTRATION

General

1. In this Schedule—

"the Act of 1974" means the Solicitors Act 1974;
"controlled trust" means, in relation to a registered foreign lawyer who is a member of a multi-national partnership, a trust of which he is a sole trustee or co-trustee only with one or more of the employees or other partners of that partnership and of which he is a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;
"the Council" means the Council of the Law Society;
"the register" means the register maintained by the Society under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors);
"registration" means registration in that register;
"the Society" means the Law Society; and
"the Tribunal" means the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Application for registration

2.—(1) An application for registration or for renewal of registration—

(a) shall be made to the Society in such form as the Council may prescribe; and
(b) shall be accompanied by such fee as the Council may, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, prescribe.

(2) Where such an application is duly made by a foreign lawyer, the Law Society may register the applicant if it is satisfied that the legal profession of which the applicant is a member is one which is so regulated as to make it appropriate—

(a) for solicitors to enter into multi-national partnerships with members of that profession; and
(b) for members of that profession to be officers of recognised bodies.

(3) Any registration may be made subject to such conditions as the Society sees fit to impose.

(4) The Council may make regulations, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, with respect to—

(a) the keeping of the register (including the manner in which entries are to be made, altered or removed); and
(b) applications for registration or renewal of registration.

(5) The register may be kept by means of a computer.

Duration of registration

3.—(1) Every registration shall have effect from the beginning of the day on which it is entered in the register.

(2) The Council may make regulations—

(a) prescribing the date ("the renewal date") by which each registered foreign lawyer must apply for his registration to be renewed; and
(b) requiring every entry in the register to specify the renewal date applicable to that registration.

(3) Any such regulations may—

(a) provide different renewal dates for different categories of registered foreign lawyer or different circumstances;
(b) provide for the Society to specify, in the case of individual registered foreign lawyers, different renewal dates to those prescribed by the regulations;
(c) make such transitional, incidental and supplemental provision in connection with any provision for different renewal dates as the Council considers expedient.

(4) Where a foreign lawyer is registered, the Society may cancel his registration if—

(a) the renewal date for his registration has passed but he has not applied for it to be renewed; or
(b) he has applied to the Society for it to be cancelled.

Evidence as to registration

4. Any certificate purporting to be signed by an officer of the Society and stating that a particular foreign lawyer—

(a) is, or is not, registered; or
(b) was registered during a period specified in the certificate,

shall, unless the contrary is proved, be evidence of that fact and be taken to have been so signed.

PART II

REGISTERED FOREIGN LAWYERS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Intervention in practices

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the intervention powers" means the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 (intervention in solicitors' practices) as modified by this Schedule or under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors).

(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the intervention powers shall be exercisable in relation to a person who is or has been a registered foreign lawyer and the practice of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member as they are exercisable in relation to a solicitor and his practice.

(3) The intervention powers are only exercisable where—

(a) the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of the registered foreign lawyer, or on the part of an employee of the multi-national partnership, in connection with—

(i) the practice of that partnership; or
(ii) any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

(b) in the case of a registered foreign lawyer who has died, the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of his personal representative, in connection with—

(i)the practice of the multi-national partnership; or


(ii) any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

(c) the Council are satisfied that the registered foreign lawyer has failed to comply with rules made under section 32 or 37(2)(c) of the Act of 1974;
(d) a bankruptcy order (as defined in paragraph 10(3)) has been made against him or he has made a composition or arrangement with his creditors;
(e) he has been committed to prison in any civil or criminal proceedings;
(f) the powers conferred by section 98 (emergency powers) or 99 (appointment of receiver) of the Mental Health Act 1983 have been exercised in respect of him;
(g) his name has been struck off the register or his registration has been suspended or cancelled;
(h) he has purported to act as a member of a multi-national partnership at a time when he was not registered;
(i) the Council are satisfied that he has failed to comply with any condition, subject to which he is registered, to the effect that—

(i) he may only be a member of a partnership which is approved by the Society; or
(ii) he may only be an officer of a recognised body which is so approved; or
(iii) he may only be such a member or such an officer.

(4) The intervention powers shall only be exercisable under sub-paragraph (3)(c) if the Society has given the foreign lawyer notice—

(a) that the Council are satisfied that he has failed to comply with rules specified in the notice; and
(b) that the intervention powers are accordingly exercisable.

(5) The intervention powers (other than those conferred by paragraphs 5 and 10 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974) shall also be exercisable where—

(a) a complaint is made to the Society that there has been undue delay on the part of a registered foreign lawyer in connection with—

(i) any matter in which he, or the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, was instructed on behalf of a client; or
(ii) any controlled trust;

(b) the Society by notice invites the registered foreign lawyer to give an explanation within a period (of not less than 8 days) specified in the notice;
(c) the registered foreign lawyer fails within that period to give an explanation which the Council regard as satisfactory; and
(d) the Society gives notice of the failure to the registered foreign lawyer and notice that the intervention powers are accordingly exercisable.

(6) Where the intervention powers are exercisable in relation to a registered foreign lawyer, they shall continue to be exercisable—

(a) at any time when his registration is suspended;
(b) after his name has been struck off the register or his registration has been cancelled; or
(c) after his death.

(7) Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 shall have effect in relation to the intervention powers exercisable by virtue of this Schedule, subject to—

(a) any express modifications made under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors); and
(b) any modifications necessary in the light of this paragraph.

(8) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 shall be read with paragraph 4(2) of Part I of that Schedule.

(9) The notices required to be given by this paragraph must be in writing but need not be given at the same time.

The Compensation Fund

6.—(1) Where the Council are satisfied—

(a) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of a registered foreign lawyer, or of an employee of a registered foreign lawyer, in connection with the practice of the multi-national partnership of which the foreign lawyer is or was a member or in connection with any trust of which that foreign lawyer is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership; or
(b) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer hardship in consequence of failure on the part of a registered foreign lawyer to account for money which has come to his hands in connection with the practice of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, or in connection with any trust of which he is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership; or
(c) that a registered foreign lawyer has suffered or is likely to suffer loss or hardship by reason of his liability to any client of his, or of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, in consequence of some act or default of any of his partners or employees in circumstances where but for the liability of that registered foreign lawyer a grant might have been made out of the Compensation Fund to some other person,

the Society may make a grant out of the Compensation Fund for the purpose of relieving that loss or hardship.

(2) Section 36 of the Act of 1974 (Compensation Fund) shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to grants under this paragraph as it applies in relation to grants under that section.

Contributions to the Fund

7.—(1) On an application for registration, a foreign lawyer shall pay to the Society a contribution to the Compensation Fund ("the initial contribution") of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine.

(2) On each application for renewal of his registration, a registered foreign lawyer shall pay to the Society—

(a) a contribution of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine ("the annual contribution"); and
(b) where it appears from his application that—

(i) he has, at any time during the period specified in the application, held or received clients' money in connection with a multi-national partnership of which he is, or was, a member; or
(ii) he is, or was at any time during that period, an officer of a recognised body which has, at any time during that period, held or received clients' money,

a further contribution ("the special levy") of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine.

(3) The Council may make rules providing, in circumstances specified by the rules, for a foreign lawyer—

(a) to pay a reduced initial or annual contribution or special levy; or
(b) not to be required to pay such a contribution or levy.

(4) Any rules under sub-paragraph (3) shall be made with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.

Accountants' reports

8.—(1) Unless the Council are satisfied that it is unnecessary for him to do so, every registered foreign lawyer shall, once in each period of twelve months ending with 31st October, deliver to the Society (whether by post or otherwise) a report signed by an accountant and containing such information as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under section 34 of the Act of 1974 (accountants' reports).

(2) The provisions of that section shall apply in relation to accountants' reports required by this paragraph, and


registered foreign lawyers, as they apply in relation to accountants' reports required by subsection (1) of that section and solicitors.

Certification for purposes of investment business

9. For the purposes of enabling the Law Society to issue certificates under Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 (regulation of investment business) to any multi-national partnership or to any recognised body managed or controlled by solicitors and one or more registered foreign lawyers—

(a) the Society shall be taken to be the appropriate professional body for that purpose;
(b) the registered foreign lawyer concerned shall be treated—

(i) as if he were a member of the Society; and
(ii) as if he were a solicitor for the purposes of paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1986 (requirements for recognition of professional body); and

(c) Part I of that Act shall have effect subject to any modifications which the Secretary of State sees fit to make by order under this paragraph with a view to enabling certificates to be issued to such partnerships or such recognised bodies.

Effect of bankruptcy

10.—(1) The registration of any foreign lawyer against whom a bankruptcy order is made shall be suspended on the making of that order.

(2) The suspension of any registration by reason of a bankruptcy order shall terminate if the order is annulled and an office copy of the order annulling it is served on the Society.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1), "bankruptcy order" includes any order which is not a bankruptcy order but which has the same, or a similar, effect under the law in force in any territory outside England and Wales.

Effect of disciplinary action

11.—(1) Where a registered foreign lawyer is struck off, or suspended from practice, his registration shall be suspended.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "struck off" and "suspended from practice" mean—

(a) any action taken within the jurisdiction by reference to which the registered foreign lawyer is qualified to be registered; or
(b) where the registered foreign lawyer is qualified to be registered by reference to more than one jurisdiction, any action taken within any one of those jurisdictions,

which is the equivalent, respectively, of a solicitor being struck off the roll or suspended from practice under the Act of 1974.

Re-instatement of disciplined foreign lawyer

12.—(1) Where a person's registration has been suspended by virtue of paragraph 11, it shall be revived—

(a) if his right to practise in the jurisdiction in question is restored; and
(b) a copy of the instrument restoring his right, certified to be a true copy by an officer of the appropriate court in the jurisdiction in question, or the professional body concerned, is served on the Society.

(2) Where a person whose registration is suspended by virtue of paragraph 11 applies to the Society for the suspension to be terminated, the Society may terminate it subject to such conditions, if any, as it thinks fit to impose.

Effective date of revived registration

13. Where a foreign lawyer's registration is revived (whether as the result of the termination of its suspension, restoration by order of the Tribunal or for any other reason), that revival shall take effect on such date, and subject to such conditions, as the Society may direct.

Appeal against conditions or refusals

14.—(1) Any foreign lawyer may appeal to the Master of the Rolls against—

(a) the refusal of the Society to register him or to renew his registration;
(b) the refusal of the Society to terminate the suspension of his registration on an application made by him under paragraph 12;
(c) the failure of the Society to deal with any application by him for registration, renewal of registration or the termination (under paragraph 12(2)) of a suspension within a reasonable time; or
(d) any condition imposed by the Society under paragraph 2(3), 12(2) or 13.

(2) An appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (d) must be brought within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the Society notifies the applicant of its decision on his application.

(3) On an appeal to him under this paragraph, the Master of the Rolls may make such order as he thinks fit.

Jurisdiction and powers of Disciplinary Tribunal

15.—(1) Subject to paragraph 16, section 46 of the Act of 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in relation to applications and complaints made by virtue of any provision of this Schedule as it applies in relation to applications and complaints made by virtue of any provision of that Act.

(2) Any application—

(a) to strike the name of a foreign lawyer off the register;
(b) to require a registered foreign lawyer to answer allegations in an affidavit;
(c) to suspend the registration of a foreign lawyer for a specified or indefinite period;
(d) by a foreign lawyer whose name has been struck off the register by order of the Tribunal to have his name restored to the register;
(e) by a foreign lawyer whose registration has been suspended for an indefinite period by order of the Tribunal for the termination of that suspension,

shall be made to the Tribunal.

(3) Any person who alleges that a registered foreign lawyer has failed to comply with any rule made under section 31, 32, 34, or 37 of the Act of 1974 may make a complaint to the Tribunal.

(4) On the hearing of any application or complaint made to the Tribunal with respect to a foreign lawyer, the Tribunal shall have power to make such order as it may think fit, and any such order may in particular include provision for any of the following matters—

(a) the striking off the register of the name of the foreign lawyer to whom the application or complaint relates;
(b) the suspension of that foreign lawyer's registration indefinitely or for a specified period;
(c) the payment by that foreign lawyer of a penalty not exceeding £5,000, which shall be forfeit to Her Majesty;
(d) the termination of that foreign lawyer's unspecified period of suspension from registration;
(e) the restoration to the register of the name of a foreign lawyer which has been struck off the register;
(f) the payment by any party of costs or a contribution towards costs of such amount as the Tribunal may consider reasonable.

(5) Any order made under subsection (4) of section 47 of the Act of 1974 varying the maximum amount of the penalty which may be imposed under subsection (2)(c) of that section may make the same variation in the corresponding amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(c).

Foreign lawyers assisting the Tribunal

16.—(1) For the purposes of section 46 of the Act of 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal), the Tribunal may make rules providing for it to be assisted, in dealing with any application or complaint of a kind mentioned in paragraph


15, by a member of the legal profession in the jurisdiction by reference to which the foreign lawyer is or was qualified to be registered.

(2) Rules under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be made without the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.

(3) Subsection (12) of section 46 of the Act of 1974 (rules to be made by statutory instrument etc.) shall apply to rules made under this paragraph as it applies to rules made under subsection (9) of that section.

Appeals from Tribunal

17.—(1) An Appeal from the Tribunal shall lie—

(a) in the case of an order on an application under paragraph 15(2)(d) or (e), or the refusal of any such application, to the Master of the Rolls;
(b) in the case of any other order or refusal under paragraph 15, to the High Court.

(2) The High Court and the Master of the Rolls shall have power to make such order on an appeal under this paragraph as they may think fit.

(3) Any decision of the Master of the Rolls on an appeal under this paragraph shall be final.

(4) The Master of the Rolls may make regulations about appeals to him under this paragraph.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Amendments made: No. 110, in page 81, line 19, leave out
'he has been adjudged backrupt'
and insert
'a bankruptcy order has been made against him'.

No. 51, in page 82, line 11, leave out 'specially' and insert 'specifically'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule 2

SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 86, line 40, at end insert—

'Persons with special needs

In discharging its functions under this Schedule, the Advisory Committee shall have regard to the need for the efficient provision of legal services for persons who face special difficulties in making use of those services, including in particular special difficulties in expressing themselves or in understanding.'.

The effect of the amendment is to require the advisory committee to have regard to the needs of the disadvantaged, particularly the less articulate, when carrying out its functions under schedule 2. It has been tabled in response to amendments tabled in both another place and in Committee. I gave an undertaking that we would consider them with every sympathy. The amendment is the result that I am happy to bring forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

AUTHORISATION AND APPROVAL

Amendments made: No. 170, in page 90, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (6).

No. 171, in page 92, line 46, leave out sub-paragraph (6).—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule 5

THE AUTHORISED CONVEYANCING PRACTITIONERS BOARD

Amendment made: No. 112, in page 96, line 7, leave out
'he has been adjudged bankrupt'
and insert
'a bankruptcy order has been made against him'.[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Temple-Morris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 5 is grouped with amendment No. 139. Amendment No. 5 was not moved but I had hoped to speak to amendment No. 139.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I made it quite clear that amendment No. 5 was an Opposition amendment. I paused and asked if it was to be moved. No one moved it and I cannot go back to it.

Mr. Vaz: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that you were referring to amendment No. 5, not to amendment No. 139.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. I made it quite clear what I was doing. Amendment No. 5 is an Opposition amendment. I asked if it was to be moved and no one did so. We have now moved on.

Schedule 7

THE CONVEYANCING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 99, line 43, after 'by' insert
',or inconvenience or distress has been caused to,'.
The amendment extends the grounds on which the conveyancing ombudsman will be able to make compensation orders to include inconvenience and distress as well as loss. In Committee, I expressed the hope that we would be able to meet the representations that were made and the amendment is the result.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9

JUDICIAL AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS

Amendment made: No. 113, in page 114, line 39, at end insert—

'Judge's legal secretary

46A. In section 98(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (appointment by certain senior judges of a legally qualified secretary) for the words "barrister or solicitor" there shall be substituted "person who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".'.

No. 114, in page 119, line 21, at end insert—

'Crown Prosecutors

.—(1) In section 1(3) of that Act (Crown Prosecutors) for the words "who is a barrister or solicitor" there shall be substituted "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".

(2) In section 5(1) of that Act (conduct of prosecutions by barristers or solicitors) for the words from "who is" to "authority" there shall be substituted "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule 14

CHILDREN ACT 1989

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 133, line 40, at end insert—

'The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c.54)

3A.—(1) Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (provisions supplementary to section 15) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3)—

(a) for the words "relevant infant" there shall be substituted "supervised person"; and
(b) the words from "and the justice" to the end shall be omitted.

(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(3A) Where a supervised person is brought before a justice under subsection (3) of this section, the justice may—

(a) direct that he be released forthwith; or
(b) subject to subsection (3C) of this section, remand him to local authority accommodation.

(3B) A justice who remands a person to local authority accommodation shall designate, as the authority who are to receive him, the authority named in the supervision order in respect of which the application or reference is being made.

(3C) Where the supervised person has attained the age of eighteen at the time when he is brought before the justice, he shall not be remanded to local authority accommodation but may instead be remanded—

(a) to a remand centre, if the justice has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception of persons under this subsection; or
(b) to a prison, if he has not been so notified."

(4) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(4) Where an application is made to a court under section 15(1) of this Act, the court may remand (or further remand) the supervised person to local authority accommodation if—

(a) a warrant has been issued under subsection (2) of this section for the purpose of securing the attendance of the supervised person before the court; or
(b) the court considers that remanding (or further remanding) him will enable information to be obtained which is likely to assist the court in deciding whether and, if so, how to exercise its powers under section 15(1)."

(5) In subsections (5)(b) and (c) and (6)(a), after the word
l2A", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "12AA".

3B.—(1) Section 32 of that Act (detention of absentees), as amended by paragraph 27 of Schedule 12 to the Act of 1989, shall be further amended as follows.

(2) In the new subsection (1A), in paragraph (b)(ii), for the words "section 23(1)" there shall be substituted "section 16(3A) or 23(1)".

(3) In the new subsection (1C), after the words "section 12AA" there shall be inserted ", 16(3B)".'.

No. 54, in page 134, line 18, at end insert—

'The Child Care Act 1980 (c.5)

5A. After section 21(2) of the Child Care Act 1980 (power

of local authority to allow child in care to be under charge and control of parent, etc.) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above and section 22A below a child shall be regarded as being under the charge and control of a person if he stays with that person for a continuous period of more than 24 hours".'.

No. 55, in page 134, line 34, at end insert—
'7A. In section 21(2)(c)(i) of the 1989 Act (provision of accommodation for children on remand) after the word "section" there shall be inserted "16(3A) or".'.

No. 56, in page 134, line 38, at end insert—
'(2) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) a child shall he regarded as living with a person if he stays with that person for a continuous period of more than 24 hours".'.

No. 57, in page 134, line 47, at end insert—

'9A. In section 27 of the Act of 1989 (co-operation between authorities)—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "or other person" and the words "or person" shall be omitted; and
(b) in subsection (3) for the word "persons" there shall be substituted "authorities" and after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust".'.

No. 58, in page 135, line 27, at end insert—
'13A. For section 45(10) of the Act of 1989 (appeals against emergency protection orders) there shall be substituted—
(10) No appeal may be made against—

(a) the making of, or refusal to make, an emergency protection order;
(b) the extension of, or refusal to extend, the period during which such an order is to have effect;
(c) the discharge of, or refusal to discharge, such an order; or
(d) the giving of, or refusal to give, any direction in connection with such an order."

13B. In section 47(11)(d) of the Act of 1989 (persons obliged to assist local authority investigations), after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust".'.

No. 172, in page 135, line 31, at end insert—
'14A. In section 93(2) of the Act of 1989 (rules of court)—

(a) in paragraph (f) for the words "the United Kingdom" there shall be substituted "England and Wales"; and
(b) in paragraph (g) after the word "is" there shall be inserted "or resides".'.

No. 59, in page 135, line 34, at end insert—
'15A. In section 97(8) of the Act of 1989 (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings) for the words "Section 71 of the Act of 1980 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings)" there shall be substituted "Sections 69 (sittings of magistrates' courts for family proceedings) and 71 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings) of the Act of 1980".
15B. In section 108(12) of the Act of 1989 (provisions extending to Northern Ireland), in the entry relating to Schedule 14, the word "18" shall be omitted.'.

No. 60, in page 135, line 38, at end insert—
'16A. In Schedule 3 to the Act of 1989 (supervision orders) paragraph 7 shall be omitted.'.

No. 61, in page 136, line 4, at end insert—
'19A. In Schedule 12 to the Act of 1989 (minor amendments), paragraph 25 (which amended section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969) shall be omitted.
19B. In Schedule 13 to the Act of 1989 (consequential amendments), paragraph 40 shall be omitted.


19C.—(1) Schedule 14 to the Act of 1989 (transitionals and savings) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 15 (children in compulsory care) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added "; or—
(h) in care by virtue of an order of the court made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,".

(3) In paragraph 16 (modifications)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (4), for the word "(g)" there shall be substituted "(h)"; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (5) for the words from "under" to "1973" there shall be substituted "—


(a) under section 4(4)(a) of the Guardianship Act 1973;
(b) under section 43(5)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; or
(c) in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,".

(4) After paragraph 16 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

Cessation of wardship where ward in care

16A. Where a child who is a ward of court is in care by virtue of—

(a) an order under section 7(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969; or
(b) an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,

he shall, on the day on which Part IV commences, cease to be a ward of court."

(5) In paragraph 22(a) for the word "(g)" there shall be substituted "(h)".

(6) In paragraph 36(5)(b) for the words "subsection (4)" there shall be substituted "subsection (6)".'.

No. 182, in page 136, line 12, after 'Act' insert—
'(including that provision as applied in relation to Northern Ireland by section 97(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)'.

No. 62, in page 136, line 18, at end insert—

'The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49)

21A. In section 94(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (interpretation), in the definition of "supervision order" for the words from first "has" to "1969" there shall be substituted "means a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or the Children Act 1989".'.

No. 63, in page 136, line 44, at end insert—

'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)

24A. In section 65(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (meaning of family proceedings), paragraph (k) shall be omitted.'.

No. 64, in page 137, line 6, at end insert—

'The Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)

25A. In section 116(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (visiting of patients who are children) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—

"(a) a child or young person—

(i) who is in the care of a local authority by virtue of a care order within the meaning of the Children Act 1989, or
(ii) in respect of whom the rights and powers of a parent are vested in a local authority by virtue of section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;".'.—[The Attorney-General]

Schedule 16

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 140, line 35, at end insert—

'The Fair Trading Act 1973 (c.41)

.In section 133(2) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"; and
(b) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

No. 115, in page 140, line 35, at end insert—

'The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18)

. In section 50(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (matrimonial causes rules), for the words from "one registrar of the divorce registry" to "local law society" there shall be substituted "one district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division, two Circuit judges, one district judge appointed under the County Courts Act 1984, two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), and two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

No. 66, in page 140, line 45, at end insert—
'The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c.39)

. In section 174(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"; and
(b) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 142, line 17, leave out from '(1)' to end of line and insert
'for the words "to committees conferred on the Council" there shall be substituted "conferred".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 68 and 77.

The Solicitor-General: Amendments Nos. 67 and 77 are consequential amendments concerning the power of the Law Society and its council to delegate their functions, and amendment No. 68 refers to reduced contributions to the Law Society compensation fund for certain of its members.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 142, line 33, at endinsert—

'(3B) Where it appears from his application for a practising certificate that a solicitor has not held or received clients' money at any time during the period specified in the application, the Council may require him—

(a) to pay an annual contribution of a specified reduced amount on that application; or
(b) to pay no annual contribution on that application.'.

No. 69, in page 142, line 33, at end insert—

'The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (c.34)

. In section 41(1) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—



(a) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"; and
(b) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

No. 70, in page 142, line 33, at end insert—

'The Estate Agents Act 1979 (c.38)

.—(1) In section 10(3) of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"; and
(b) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".'.

The Competition Act 1980 (c.21)

. Section 19 of the Competition Act 1980 (restriction on disclosure of information) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".

(3) In subsection (3) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (1)—
(m) the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

No. 116, in page 142, line 33, at end insert—

'The Patents Act 1977 (c.37)

.—(1) In section 102 of the Patents Act 1977 (right of audience etc in proceedings before the comptroller), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken to limit the right to draw or prepare deeds given to a registered patent agent by section (Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

(2) In section 102A of that Act (right of audience etc in proceedings on appeal from the comptroller), the following subsection shall he added at the end—
(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to limit the right to draw or prepare deeds given to a registered patent agent by section (Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990." '.

No. 173, in page 142, line 33, at end insert—

'The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c.22)

. In section 16 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (powers of court to make orders for the protection of a party to marriage or a child of the family), in subsection (6) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted "that the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as may be prescribed by rules".'.

No. 117, in page 142, line 37, at end insert—

'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)

.—(1) The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 150(1) (interpretation) after the definition of "impose imprisonment" there shall be inserted the following definition—
legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 99(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;".

(3) For the words—

(a) "counsel or a solicitor" in sections 4(4)(b), 6(2)(b), 23(1)(a) and 128(1B);
(b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 122(1) and (3);

there shall be substituted "a legal representative".

(4) For the words—

(a) "solicitor" in sections 6(2)(a), 12(2), 128(1A)(ii) and (3B);
(b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 72(3)(a) and (4);
(c) "solicitor or barrister" in section 145(1)(d), there shall he substituted "legal representative".

(5) For the words "counsel and solicitors" in section 8(4)(d) there shall be substituted "the legal representatives".

(6) For the words—

(a) "solicitors and counsel" in section 69(2)(b);
(b) "solicitors or counsel" in section 69(4),

there shall be substituted "legal representatives".

(7) In section 144(3) (members of the rule committee) in subsection (3), for the words "one justices' clerk" to the end there shall be substituted—

"(a) one justices' clerk;
(b) one person who has a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and
(c) one person who has been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

No. 118, in page 144, line 1, at end insert—

'.—(l) In section 85 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (Supreme Court Rule Committee)—

(a) for paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1), there shall be substituted—

"(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and
(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

(b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

(4) Before appointing a person under paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult any authorised body with members who are eligible for appointment under that paragraph.

(2) In section 86 of that Act (Crown Court Rule Committee)—

(a) for paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1), there shall be substituted—

"(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and
(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

(b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

(4) Before appointing a person under paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult any authorised body with members who are eligible for appointment under that paragraph.".'.

.No. 71, in page 144, line 9, at end insert—

'. In section 90 of that Act (Official Solicitor) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—

"(3A) The holder for the time being of the office of Official Solicitor shall have the right to conduct litigation in relation. to any proceedings.

(3B) When acting as Official Solicitor a person who would otherwise have the right to conduct litigation by virtue of section 26(2)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 shall be treated as having acquired that right solely by virtue of subsection (3A)".'.

No. 119, in page 144, line 43, leave out paragraph 32.

No. 120, in page 145, line 21, at end insert—

'. For section 75(7) of that Act (members of the rule committee) there shall be substituted—

"(7) The rule committee shall consist of the following persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor—

(a) five judges of county courts;
(b) two district judges;
(c) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and
(d) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

. For section 143(1) of that Act (prohibition on persons other then solicitors receiving remuneration for work in county courts) there shall be substituted—

"(1) No person other than—

(a) a legal representative; or
(b) a person exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation by virtue of an order made under section 9 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (representation in county courts),

shall be entitled to have or recover any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party in proceedings in a county court."

.—(1) In section 147(1) of that Act (interpretation) after the definition of "landlord" there shall be inserted—
 "legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 99(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

(2) For the word "solicitor" in sections 13(1) and (4), 61(2) and 126 of that Act there shall be substituted "legal representative".

(3) For the word "solicitors" in sections 18, 24(1), 27(6), 75(3)(f) and 79 of that Act there shall be substituted "legal representatives".'.

No. 121, in page 145, line 21, at end insert—

'The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c. 42)

. In section 40(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (family proceedings rules), for paragraphs (c) to (g) there shall be substituted—

"(c) one district judge of the principal registry of that Division,
(d) two Circuit judges,
(e) one district judge appointed under the County Courts Act 1984,
(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), and
(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

No. 122, in page 146, line 4, at end insert—
'.—(1) In section 14(1)(a) of that Act (regulations in relation to fees of counsel) for the word "counsel" there shall be substituted "any legal representative".
(2) The following definition shall be inserted in section 15(1) of that Act after the definition of "Director"—
legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 99(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.'.

No. 183, in page 146, line 4, at end insert—
'.In section 20(2) of that Act (regulations providing for the recovery of sums paid by the Legal Aid Board or out of central funds), in paragraph (a) for the words "party to proceedings" there shall be substituted "person".'

No. 123, in page 146, line 5, at end insert—

'.—(1) Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (management and control by solicitors of incorporated practices) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a)—

(a) after the word "solicitors", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted "or solicitors and one or more registered foreign lawyers"; and
(b) at then end there shall be inserted "or by multi-national partnerships".

(3) In subsection (8), the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places—

"multi-national partnership" means a partnership whose members consist of one or more registered foreign lawyers and one or more solicitors;
"registered foreign lawyer" means a person who is registered under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

No. 172, in page 146, line 25, at end insert—
'40A. In Schedule 6 to that Act (incorporated licensed conveyancers) the following shall be substituted for paragraph 4(3)—
(3) Where it appears to the Council that the professional services provided by a recognised body in connection with any matter in which that body has been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of that body, the Council may take any step with respect to that recognised body as it could take under paragraphs 14 to 20 of Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 with respect to a licensed conveyancer in similar circumstances.
(3A) Those paragraphs shall have effect (with the necessary modifications) with respect to any steps taken against the recognised body under this sub-paragraph as they have effect with respect to any steps taken with respect to a licensed conveyancer under paragraph 14 of that Schedule".'.

No. 155, in page 146, line 39, leave out '49' and insert—
'(Representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988)'.

No. 156, in page 146, line 46, leave out subsection (7A) and insert—
'(7A) If it is satisfied that the circumstances of a particular case in the Supreme Court or the House of Lords warrant a direction under this subsection, the Board or, in the case of criminal proceedings the competent authority, may direct that representation in that case shall be by one legal representative.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule 17

TRANSITIONALS AND SAVINGS

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 149, line 15, leave out paragraphs 5 and 6.

No. 74, in page 149, line 31, at end insert—

'Judicial oaths

.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to any person who, immediately after the coming into force of section 63, holds any of the offices listed in subsection (1) of that section.

(2) The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall have effect as if in section 6 for the words "as soon as may be after his acceptance of office" there were substituted "not later than 6 months after the coming into force of section 63 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990'.

No. 75, in page 151, line 27, at end insert—

'The Council for Licensed Conveyancers

.—(1) The following provisions—

(a) section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers);
(b) the repeal by Schedule 18 of section 26(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985; and
(c) paragraph 40A of Schedule 16,


shall not affect any case in which the final bill of costs was delivered to the client concerned before the commencement of section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers).

(2) Until such date as may be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor, the provisions of—

(a) paragraphs 14 to 20 of Schedule (Licensed conveyancers); and
(b) paragraph 4(3) and (3A) of Schedule 6 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as substituted by paragraph 40A of Schedule 16,

shall have effect as if they conferred powers on the Discipline and Appeals Committee and not on the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.

(3) Any order made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (2) may make such transitional, consequential or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer of jurisdiction under the provisions in question from the Discipline and Appeals Committee to the Council.'.

No. 174, in page 151, line 27, at end insert—

'Immunity of magistrates etc.

.—(1) The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 89, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a justice of the peace, as if section 89 had not been enacted.

(2) The Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 90, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a resident magistrate or justice of the peace, as if section 90 had not been enacted.

(3) Section 63 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 90, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a person to whom this sub-paragraph applies, as if section 90 had not been enacted.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) applies to—

(a) a resident magistrate, including a deputy resident magistrate;
(b) a justice of the peace; and
(c) a person specified in section 63(7) of the Act of 1985 (county court judges sitting in connection with certain appeals and members of juvenile court panels).'.

No. 184, in page 151, leave out lines 28 to 31.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule 18

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 76, in page 152, line 51, at end insert—


'1969c. 54.
The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
In section 16(3), words from "and the justice" to the end.'.

No. 77, in page 153, column 3, leave out lines 31 and 32.

No. 175, in page 153, line 48, at beginning insert—

'1978 c. 22.
The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.
Section 16(7).



Section 17(2).



Section 23(1).



Section 24.



Section 30(2) to (4).'.

No. 79, in page 154, line 6, at end insert—

'1980 c. 43.
The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
Section 65(l)(k).'.

No. 124, in page 154, line 46, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 60, subsection (1), and in subsection (2) the words "not being a person entitled to address the court by virtue of subsection (1)" and "as if he were a person so entitled.".'.

No. 125, in page 154, line 51, column 3, leave out '"them"' and insert '"and prescribing'".

No. 126, in page 154, line 55, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 143(2).'.

No. 127, in page 155, line 8, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 15(1), the definition of "solicitor", and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

No. 80, in page 155, line 11, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 26(3).'.

No. 128, in page 155, line 11, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 9(8) the second "and".'.

No. 81, in page 155, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

'In Schedule 3, paragraph 8.'

No. 82, in page 155, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 27(1), the words "or other person" and the words "or person".'.

No. 83, in page 156, line I, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 108(12), in the entry relating to Schedule 14, the word 18



In Schedule 3, paragraph 7.'.

No. 84, in page 156, line 8, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In Schedule 12, paragraph 25.'.

No. 85, in page 156, line 9, column 3, leave out 'and 25' and insert—

'25 and 40 In Schedule 14, in paragraph 15(l), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (g).'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 185, in line 13, leave out
'to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions;'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I express my warm appreciation to all hon. Members, and in particular to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and all those from the Back Benches on both sides of the House who have contributed greatly to the success of the parliamentary handling of the Bill. The Bill takes an important place in the Government's strategy of encouraging competition and the widening of choice, particularly the widening of choice for those who are customers here for legal services. I believe that the parliamentary process has worked very well because of the assiduity of hon. Members. I hope that, in turn, they feel that the Government have listened and responded constructively in many instances, although not in as many as they would have wished, to suggestions to improve the Bill. I am grateful for all that has been done.
I realise that the Bill has occasioned a great deal of approval in the country, but also a certain amount of anxiety. Each of those reactions has been well founded. I believe that much of the anxiety has been dispelled. The Bill will take its place as a constructive measure.

Mr. John Morris: If I am forgiven anything in this House, I am sure that I shall be forgiven my brevity on this occasion. I endorse the Attorney-General's thanks to the Committee for its consideration. I thank the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor for their courtesy and

explanations at all times. I am especially grateful for the work done by Lord Mischcon and his team in the other place.
The improvement of the Bill was necessary because of the severe criticism levelled at it. We have not objected to extending rights of audience. I was anxious that the power should not be enshrined solely in the bosom of a political Minister, even though he be the Lord High Chancellor. Now that the judges have a new and important role, we are anxious that the aims of the Bill are carried out. I am confident that they will be. If there is any breakdown, we shall have to return to the matter later and consider it afresh, but I am sure that that will not be necessary.
One of the sad omissions from the Bill is that it has no enhancement for legal aid. The professions are concerned about profitability in that area. I fear that one day we shall have to return to that.

Mr. Temple-Morris: This is broadly a good Bill which will result in a more balanced profession. Perhaps all those who have been closely associated with the Bill would agree that it is as important for that which has been discussed but is not in the Bill as for that which is in the Bill following our discussions.
During its progress, the Bill has been improved in relation to consumer safeguards in conveyancing. However, the danger to the small solicitor—other than in Scotland where that has been overtly recognised—remains and must be monitored. We shall also have to monitor how the rights of audience work. There remains concern about the designated judges. Indeed, I had intended briefly to air that concern, had I spoken to the amendment which I did not succeed in moving a few moments ago.
I am sure that many people will carefully watch what happens with the new authorised conveyancers and the consumer interests relating to them. They should be no obstruction—I do not suggest that they will be—to solicitors' rights of audience in the higher courts.
I welcome the role of the ombudsman and hope that increasingly the administration of the courts will be considered by that gentleman.
I thank the Front-Bench spokesmen for both the Government and the Opposition for the spirit of courtesy that has prevailed during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I thank the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for their courtesy and co-operation. I also thank their officials, to whom all members of the Committee had access during the Committee stage, which was extremely helpful.
I make no apology for saying that I still view the future of the legal profession with trepidation. It is essential for our constitutional safeguards and for the liberties of the citizen that there should be a strong and independent Bar in England and Wales. I hope that, through the process of consultation and reasonable argument, we have ensured that when the machinery set up by the Bill comes to consider the future of the profession it, too, will bear in mind the need for that strong, independent Bar as part of our legal establishment.
With that in mind, I wish the Bill a fair wind, although I suspect that we shall argue some of the issues time and time again.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

PROCEDURE

Motion made,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).

Hon. Members: Object.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.

Motion made
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members) and Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of Motions, amendments and questions) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made—

Time for taking Questions

(1)—Questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of.

(2) No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions which have not appeared on the paper but which are in Mr Speaker's opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.

(3) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the Order Paper for that day.

Notices of Questions, Motions and Amendments

(l)—Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office.

(2) A notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Order Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half-past ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House.

(3) A Member shall indicate on the notice of any question whether it is for oral, written or priority written answer.

(4) Where a Member has indicated that a question is for priority written answer the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given, provided that the requirement of notice shall be the same for such questions as that prescribed in this order for questions for oral answer.

(5) Notice of a question for oral answer may not be given on a day earlier than ten sitting days before the day For answer, provided that, where that earliest day would otherwise fall on a Friday, the earliest day on which such notice may be given will instead be the previous sitting day.

(6) Notice of any question for oral answer must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before that on which an answer is desired.

(7) When it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of less than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purpose of calculating the period in paragraph (5) of this order.

(8) When notice shall have been given of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days Mr. Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6) of this order and instead setting out the earliest day on which notice of questions for oral answer may be given for each of the first ten sitting days after that adjournment, provided that each such day shall as far as practicable fall on the same day of the week as that on which the question is to be answered and shall not be fewer than fourteen days before the day for answer; and also setting out the latest day for notice of questions for oral answer on each of the first two sitting days following that adjournment provided that each such day shall not be fewer than two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before the day for answer.

Hon. Members: Object.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Motion made,
That Mr. Peter Lilley be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Francis Maude be added to the Committee.

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Humberside (Boundary Commission Investigation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Michael Brown: It is a pleasure and a privilege to address the House on the day of the appointment to Government of my hon. Friends the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), all of whom I am delighted to see in their rightful places on the Treasury Bench. I wish them all a long and distinguished career, and I wish them well in their new, arduous and onerous responsibilities.
I remind the House that the reason for this debate was the excellent decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who in 1989, as Secretary of State for the Environment, was so concerned about the strong feeling against the existence of Humberside county council that, exceptionally, he ordered the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to consider the case for that county's abolition.
My right hon. Friend was moved to take that decision because he had received about 7,000 representations from the people of the ill-loved county of Humberside expressing their opposition. He took the view that it was right and proper for the Boundary Commission to consider whether the people concerned should revert to residing in their rightful counties of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
The commission's interim report did not, sadly, accord with the wishes of my constituents. Just three weeks ago, on 5 July, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) initiated an Adjournment debate on the same issue. He drew attention to the guidelines given to the Boundary Commission, whose interim review published on 7 March states in paragraph 47, on page 13, that there are three strands to any consideration of boundaries. As the commission approaches the task of drafting its final report, I take this opportunity to remind it of its terms of reference, and that the three strands that it is obliged to take into account are:
whether the boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants;

(ii) whether it reflects the pattern of community life; and
(iii) whether it is conducive to the effective operation of local government or any associated services."

On the first test, there is no doubt that the majority of my constituents—and, I suspect, those of Glanford and Scunthorpe and of Great Grimsby—wish to return to the county of Lincolnshire, as that most likely to reflect
the pattern of commmunity life".
Lincolnshire has a natural boundary in the form of the river Humber estuary. The old country of the east riding of Yorkshire was the other county which had the river Humber as a natural boundary. The residents of south Humberside look to Lincoln and to the county of Lincolnshire as the county with which they identify.
Our experience of living under the dreaded county of Humberside over the past 15 years with regard to whether it is
conducive to the effective operation of local government
is that the county of Humberside fails that test. The community charge in the county of Humberside is about

£100 higher than it is in the county of Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire can deliver its local government services—eduacation, social services, roads and all the ancillary services—at a cost to the charge payer that is £100 less than the charge in the county of Humberside. That test proves conclusively that Lincolnshire is the county which is most conducive to the effective operation of local government for my constituents.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who was kind enough to reply to the debate three weeks ago that the hatred of my constituents for the county of Humberside is virtually total. The unhappiness about the concept of Humberside which persists among many of its residents 15 years after its creation shows that now is the time to urge the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to consider the strength of local feeling. I fully accept that it is probably unlikely that my hon. Friend the Minister can add much more to what he said three weeks ago, but I hope that he will assure me and my constituents today that he will draw the attention of the Boundary Commission to the strength of feeling that I am expressing on behalf of my constituents.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw to the commission's attention the fact that I was elected by the people and speak for them. My voice on their behalf must be considered when the commission produces its final report. This is the appropriate time to urge the Boundary Commission to accept the challenge thrown down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. At this point in the sad history of the county of Humberside, people's confidence in the county has been sapped. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to pass on my views.
I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), a Yorkshire Member, is present in the Chamber. He has told me that he would like to support my comments and I will now allow him to substantiate some of my points.

Mr. Gary Waller: I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on initiating this debate and I agree with everything that he has said.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) initiated a debate on this subject on 5 July. He spoke in similar terms and argued for the abolition of Humberside, for the creation of a new county of East Yorkshire and for the return of South Humberside to Lincolnshire. The fact that we have had a second debate so soon after the first, shows the strength of feeling about this.
Both debates have been initiated by hon. Members representing constituencies south of the river Humber. Lest it be thought that the strength of feeling is greater in the areas that were formerly unashamedly in Lincolnshire, I remind the House that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England found that the strength of feeling—or outrage as I would describe it—about their incorporation in Humberside is even greater among those who live to the north of the estuary.
Although I represent a constituency in West Yorkshire which is quite a long way from Humberside, I speak as a native Yorkshireman and a member of the Yorkshire Society. I have no trouble in understanding why the


changes that came about in 1974 have never been accepted. Those who drew purely artificial lines on the map to create this concoction cannot easily be forgiven.
Some think that the problem of assuaging traditional loyalties could be resolved either if Humberside changed its name, although it is difficult to think of an alternative, or if postal addresses were altered. That argument is similar to that put by those who argued for the new administrative counties at the time of the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. They claimed that there was no problem because people would still be able to retain their traditional counties. Most of those on the north side of the estuary still feel themselves to be Yorkshire people, but know that something significant has been taken from them by the creation and continuation of a new administrative county for which they feel no affection and little, if any, loyalty.
The Boundary Commission considered issues under the two heads of convenience of administration and traditional loyalties as well as patterns of community life. On the first, it concluded that a reversion to more traditional boundaries would be
no better able to provide effective and convenient local government than the present Humberside County Council.
At no point did the commission suggest that local government would be any worse. Not surprisingly, it found that there were too many imponderables to make a judgment as to whether there would be an improvement or a deterioration. The main issue, therefore, related to the transitional inconvenience of a further disruption in local government.
When it comes to the preferences of the people as a whole rather than those of people with a stake in the status quo, there is no doubt about how they feel. When asked for their opinion, 62 per cent. of all residents wanted a change from the present county. On the north bank, 64 per cent. stated a wish to see some sort of Yorkshire solution. Many, like me, felt that the answer could be the creation of a new East Yorkshire county, including Selby, although that issue has not exercised most people's minds at this stage. Curiously, a reason why the Boundary Commission seemed to come down against that option was that the present boundary between York and Selby is unsatisfactory. Surely, more urgent attention could be given to that matter if necessary, rather than leaving it until the Humberside issue has been resolved.
The Boundary Commission rather airily dismissed the deep feelings of people for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, stating:
Such loyalties should be able to co-exist with support for Humberside as an administrative unit.
Unfortunately, that statement is out of touch with reality. After many years, the survey carried out on behalf of the Boundary Commission shows that only just over a third of the people of Humberside would support the retention of the county. That being so, I find an element of perversity in the Commission's conclusion, especially bearing in mind the strong lead given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the former Secretary of State for the Environment. I accept that it is difficult for any group of people to reach one decision and then to come to a contrary one.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot say anything substantive today. I realise that the law does not allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State to reach a conclusion off his own bat. Rather, he must endorse or refuse one presented to him by the Boundary Commission. I can only say, with a great deal of support from those who still think of themselves as Yorkshire or Lincolnshire people, that I hope even now that there will be a recognition that a decision to go back to something like the ancient Yorkshire and Lincolnshire which existed before 1974 would be enthusiastically applauded not only in the present Humberside but far outside the existing boundaries of that unloved teenager.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): It was no surprise to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) chose this subject. I have been aware of his strong feelings on the issue. He has never been one to be shy about making his views known, particularly when his constituents are concerned. He set out his case against the present county structure with his usual skill and exuberance, and he was supported in that by some additional points by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who gave his views from a slightly different perspective—from West Yorkshire. On 5 July I answered a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes intervened on that occasion as well.
It might be appropriate if I set out a little of the background, because the present boundary review takes place in a more general framework. I shall then comment more specifically on the Humberside review.
Until 1972, the review of local government boundaries was somewhat haphazard and intermittent. There were periods of great change interspersed with periods when little happened. In 1972, it was thought that a new system would be appropriate. There was general agreement that it should not be possible for the Government of the day to make changes as they saw fit, because that would introduce the temptation to change electoral boundaries for political convenience.
I believe that Governor Gerry of Massachussetts was the first politician who fell victim to the temptation to alter boundaries to suit his political ends. I understand that he designed a constituency which looked rather like a salamander. Someone thought that it should be called a gerrymander, so he gave his name to a political system and it passed into our language.
In 1972, the then right hon. Member for Crosby, the late Graham Page, wisely wished to protect his successors as Ministers for Local Government from the temptation to follow in Governor Gerry's steps. He designed a system which ensures that changes can be made when they are desirable for
effective and convenient local government.
Those words appear in the Local Government Act 1972, which also imposes constraints upon the Secretary of State of the time in initiating such changes.
Effective and convenient local government has three components, to which reference has been made—first, whether the proposed boundaries reflect the wishes of the majority of the local residents; secondly, whether the alterations would provide more efficient services at county or district level; thirdly, whether they would better reflect the pattern of community life.
Under the Local Government Act 1972, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was set up. It is a small, expert body of people who review local government boundaries throughout the country and form a view of what will make for effective and convenient local government. The legislation provides for the commission to take the Government's views into account. That is done by way of Department of the Environment circulars. The legislation also provides for local people to be given every opportunity to have their say, both before the proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State and afterwards.
A very important feature of the system is that the Secretary of State can only work within the framework of the commission's recommendations. He can either accept its recommendations or reject them. He can accept them with some modifications, but what he cannot do, and has no power to do, is to devise changes of his own and come up with something quite different from the commission's recommendations.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on Humberside. The guidelines for the first Humberside review laid down that the abolition of the county council or any principal authority should not be recommended. However, after the Commission recommended that there should not be a major change on Humberside, a large number of people took issue with the report. Over 7,000 representations were received. My hon. Friend mentioned that figure.
In the light of that response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury decided that the commission should have a further look at the question, without the previous constraints. He therefore directed the comission to carry out a further review and to take a

completely fresh look at the question. It was able to consider the abolition of Humberside county council and the division of the county in whatever way seemed appropriate, and that remains the position. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey earlier this month, we now await the commission's report on its further review.
We know that the commission is carrying out careful and thorough studies of all aspects of the question. It has told me that its consideration of all the questions involved is proving somewhat more difficult than expected. Nevertheless, I should prefer the commission to take a careful, considered and painstaking look at every aspect of these possible boundary changes rather than trying to meet an artificial deadline.
My hon. Friends know that the Government cannot express an opinion at this stage. I have listened carefully to what they have said today and I shall draw the Boundary Commission's attention to the debate. It is right that it should be made aware of expressions of opinion in the House.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that when a debate on this issue took place recently in the other place all who spoke in it expressed very much the same sort of view as has been expressed in this House?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I have read the report of that debate, and Lord Hesketh sent the report of the debate to the Boundary Commission, so the chairman and the members of the commission are also aware of it.
At this time I can express no views on the merits of the case, but I await the commission's report with interest. In conclusion, I repeat that I will ensure that the commission is made aware of the views that have been expressed today.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.